Skip to content
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

Accept additional cache keys for haste map #7350

Conversation

rubennorte
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

Right now the hasteImplModulePath (used to extract "global" module names from file paths) and dependencyExtractor options are not taken into account to compute the cache key for the haste map. Those options affect a great deal how the haste map is generated, so if they change the haste map should be regenerated (e.g. if we change the dependency extractor to add a new type of dependency, they won't be included in the files that are currently cached in the haste map).

Test plan

Added unit tests to check this.

@rubennorte
Copy link
Contributor Author

Right now it includes the changes in #7349. I'll rebase once that one is merged.

@rubennorte rubennorte force-pushed the accept-additional-cache-keys-for-haste-map branch 3 times, most recently from ff5096d to 7b198a2 Compare November 9, 2018 16:13
@rubennorte rubennorte force-pushed the accept-additional-cache-keys-for-haste-map branch from 7b198a2 to 034abd6 Compare November 9, 2018 16:17
@rubennorte rubennorte merged commit 49d0840 into jestjs:master Nov 9, 2018
@rubennorte rubennorte deleted the accept-additional-cache-keys-for-haste-map branch November 9, 2018 16:31
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 12, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants