Open cowwoc opened 7 years ago
I'm assuming that --require is passed on to node like any other argument? Has nothing to do with this package, if so. That's how I see it.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, 06:29 Gili Tzabari notifications@github.com wrote:
Can you please document the --require option and tell users that they will need to use this when trying to run gulp/grunt behind babel-register?
It took me forever to get this working until I ran across this comment: #8 (comment) https://github.com/jaridmargolin/inspect-process/issues/8#issuecomment-259539429
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jaridmargolin/inspect-process/issues/28, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAmyx15vndKSCLXxNeIrJjuHDU1G5LYpks5rPcMegaJpZM4LcZSu .
@cowwoc - The comment you referenced is from v0.3.X where shorthand aliases were not working. Is this what you are referring to? A patch was released and it should be working now.
If this is indeed the case. I think maybe you could have benefited from a changelog being present?
I think @mightyiam is right. I was not aware of the --require
node option. I never had to use it before.
I have historically just invoked gulp
and babel-register
would get invoked automatically. I don't think I would have figured out that I needed to add --require
by myself.
That said, this is probably out of scope for this project. Feel free to close this issue.
Ok great. Thanks @mightyiam.
I am still curious why invoking gulp
standalone results in babel-register
automatically being invoked, but when being proxied through inspect
the --require
flag is necessary.
Same here, but you should be able to reproduce the same behavior on your end.
Can you please document the
--require
option and tell users that they will need to use this when trying to rungulp/grunt
behindbabel-register
?It took me forever to get this working until I ran across this comment: https://github.com/jaridmargolin/inspect-process/issues/8#issuecomment-259539429