search

cognoma / frontend

Frontend for Project Cognoma
http://cognoma.org/
Other
4 stars 22 forks source link

An import was referencing a directory using a capitalized name #73

Closed kurtwheeler closed 7 years ago

kurtwheeler commented 7 years ago

However, the directory actually started with a lowercase letter. This was breaking the import and thus breaking the build. This simple commit fixes that import allowing the build to work correctly.

I have tested this by running npm run build. After doing so gulp ran successfully and there was a build/ directory created containing everything I would expect to be there.

dhimmel commented 7 years ago

@bdolly: @kurtwheeler has been working on getting api.cognoma.org and cognoma.org deployed. After this PR is merged, we should be able to serve the build directory via GitHub pages. I can make that PR.

bdolly commented 7 years ago

@dhimmel what is the process for deployments to GitHub pages? I pulled this PR down and ran it and noticed some bugs on the front-end (probably from some of my previous commits). I have some of those fixed on my local build at put it up on my GH pages at https://bdolly.github.io/cognoma-frontend/#!/query-builder/mutations, so I would like to roll those into the deployment with a couple of new PRs.

dhimmel commented 7 years ago

so I would like to roll those into the deployment with a couple of new PRs.

Keep making your fixes into develop.

There are two possibility for how to deploy the build contents to http://cognoma.org via GitHub pages:

  1. The docs folder on the master branch. In this case, contributors would run npm run build && mv build docs before committing (and we'd track the contents of docs).
  2. We run npm run build && ghp-import --push build. This will overwrite the gh-pages branch with the contents of build. Then we can PR the changes into the gh-pages branches here.

In the first option, we track the build contents alongside the source. In the second option, we only track the build contents in a separate branch. The first option requires users to run npm run build, while the second option just requires maintainers to choose when to deploy. So I'm leaning towards option 2.

We will have to enable Pages in the repo settings and likely add a CNAME file.

bdolly commented 7 years ago

@dhimmel I'm also in favor of option 2. It seems "cleaner" and easier to maintain.

I'm going to go ahead and merge this PR since it's small.