I've put up a PR instead of filing an issue because this is small change that I've already worked around locally and am not sure aligns with the future strategy for testing.
Issue
If you choose to colocate test files (.spec.js) in your generated project, or use any other filename with periods in it (eg. test.something.js), running lux build will fail as the manifest gets created with periods as export names.
//dist/index.js
export {
default as test.something
} from '../app/test.something.js';
Fix
This modifies the file filter to exclude these files and renames it to a more contextual is-project-file, as filenames with dots aren't supported by the manifest anyway so they aren't valid js files for the project.
This could be made more generic with exclusion filters on file names, but that'd likely require additional configuration options, which seem against the 'convention over configuration approach'.
I've put up a PR instead of filing an issue because this is small change that I've already worked around locally and am not sure aligns with the future strategy for testing.
Issue
If you choose to colocate test files (
.spec.js) in your generated project, or use any other filename with periods in it (eg.test.something.js), runninglux buildwill fail as the manifest gets created with periods as export names.Fix
This modifies the file filter to exclude these files and renames it to a more contextual
is-project-file, as filenames with dots aren't supported by the manifest anyway so they aren't valid js files for the project.Alternatively, the compiler could rewrite these exports as another valid symbol, as it does here: https://github.com/postlight/lux/blob/5da9653212e4693ae6f8dba4c98b91277d055b3c/src/packages/compiler/utils/format-name.js#L16
Other
This could be made more generic with exclusion filters on file names, but that'd likely require additional configuration options, which seem against the 'convention over configuration approach'.