-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: use preview server parameter in preview server hook #11647
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the PR! I think this makes sense.
// apply server hooks from plugins | ||
const postHooks: ((() => void) | void)[] = [] | ||
for (const hook of config.getSortedPluginHooks('configurePreviewServer')) { | ||
postHooks.push(await hook({ middlewares: app, httpServer })) | ||
postHooks.push(await hook(server)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
configurePreviewServer
hooks now runs after the server started to listen on the port.
I'm not sure if this is safe or not. But I think it's better to align with the dev server.
How about adding PreviewServerForHook
type that has a nullable resolvedUrls
property? And then use PreviewServerForHook
for the hooks and use PreviewServer
for the return type of preview
function for compatibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah you're right. I think PreviewServerForHook
makes sense, but for the next major, maybe we can make it nullable by default so the types are cleaner.
With this change, I think this PR is good too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we could merge this in 4.3. @sapphi-red if you agree, you can directly commit your suggestion and merge this one. The alignment is quite uncontroversial to me, we shouldn't need a meeting to review this one IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I rebased on main and pushed some commits 👍
aab2019
to
f963c90
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! Thanks for cleaning this up sapphi
Description
Closes #11631. The code changes basically follow what I described in the issue's proposed solution.
What is the purpose of this pull request?
Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following
fixes #123
).