M4 update #67
M4 update #67
Conversation
| expect(wrapper.find(Link).at(0).props().children).toEqual('Whole image (4000 x 1000px)'); | ||
| expect(wrapper.find(Link).at(1).props().children).toEqual('Whole image (2000 x 500px)'); | ||
| expect(wrapper.find(Link).at(2).props().children).toEqual('Whole image (1000 x 250px)'); | ||
| // TODO: Fix the tests that fails because of OSDReferences.get(windowId).current.viewport |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test fails due to a change in behaviour in https://github.com/ProjectMirador/mirador/blob/37b1f21a4b90a257b870f65560b6274b1a982422/src/plugins/OSDReferences.js and needs to be investigated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the test is missing some mocked values, in particular currentBoundsSpy.mockImplementation() with a return value like in the base version:
mirador-dl-plugin/__tests__/CanvasDownloadLinks.test.js
Lines 44 to 46 in 3f1b350
| "build:umd": "NODE_ENV=production webpack --mode=production", | ||
| "build:es": "mkdir -p es && cp -r src/* es && NODE_ENV=production MODULE_FORMAT=es npx babel es -d es", | ||
| "build:cjs": "mkdir -p lib && cp -r src/* lib && NODE_ENV=production MODULE_FORMAT=cjs npx babel lib -d lib", | ||
| "parcel": "parcel demo/src/index.html", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-
This PR Update plugin for Mirador 4 mirador-image-tools#49 and the main Mirador repo use webpack instead of parcel to serve the content. While I don't have a strong preference about this and we deferred changes like introducing vite, I think we should try to use consistent approaches across the different repos. Is there a particular reason for using parcel here, even though webpack is already used for the build scripts?
-
Similar thing about script names: it would be nice to be able to start every application with
npm run start.
No description provided.