Scripts Review/Clean up

[kwelch-eb]

I have been thinking hard on this and would love to know your opinion.

Short Version/Action List

• Remove test:watch
• Remove tsc
• Remove test:ci
• Add --ci tag to travis script
• Remove check:size from validate
• Add check:size as postbuild
• Update validate:watch to include tsc runner
• [Optional] Remove validate:watch to start
• [ ] [Optional] Replace tsc with jest based option

Long Version

I feel as though our scripts should be based on publish consumption and use case. With that in mind I recommend we remove tasks that are not for publish use, specifically the CI test script.

I believe our scripts should be based on the phase of work. Here is a summary of the phased and my recommendation on how we should handle them, including specific action items.

• Development Phase
  • This should be a minimal script that ensure continued code functionality and surface errors and warnings
    • For this reason, I recommend we remove check:size from validate because it does not add a lot of value while running in a watch state
  • Covered by either validate (one time) or start/validate:watch (watch mode)
    • I recommend we remove test:watch as it is covered our watch script
• Build Phase
  • Covered by build
  • This is a good final check of the code and is best suited for longer actions and full compliation
  • I recommend move the check:size to the build phase as it already requires a build and its data is most pertinent then.
• Deploy Phase
  • This is currently intended to be resolved and completed by CI and no public scripts are necessary

Note: This is still a lot of raw thoughts and I look forward to discussion and flushing this out.

[benmvp]

I think all of your suggestions make sense. I really like having start for the watch mode. Makes a lot of sense for library development.

The reason we had tsc was so that we can use npm-run-all in check:static. It would be nice to get rid of.

If we get rid of test:watch & test:ci, we would still keep test though right?

I'm thinking maybe calling check:size in build instead of with postbuild.

Totally +1 with "Deploy Phase"

Thanks!

[kwelch-eb]

The standard scripts are start and test so I would picture test staying even if we remove the "sub"-scripts.

I am indifferent to the location of check:size in build vs postbuild. The main point on that it I see it more as a verification than a validation step. I think having it in build/postbuild would mean we don't need a precheck:size to run a build.

If we are good with this, I will start making some of these changes. I will probably make a few PRs for this since that list is a lot of small tasks.

[rwholey-eb]

+1 to removing check:size from anything thats run by a watcher. I'm all for less scripts. I'm not sure i see the benefits of a few smaller prs though since the dev team so far is pretty small. Thoughts on changing the scripts all at once?

[benmvp]

I assumed this was happening in a single PR...

[kwelch-eb]

I am good with doing them all at the same time.

[kwelch-eb]

I have started on this a bit. Slightly blocked by azz/jest-runner-tsc#2, but going to move forward with most of it then double back to see if I can get the config passing through properly.

[ebtravis]

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 1.0.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀