es modules and build system updates

[chrisblossom]

This PR tackles item number 1 in #197 (comment).

This lays most of the groundwork to migrate to typescript, but I tried to also let this PR stand on its own.

b2b5d39 - Please look at this commit and the description and verify you agree with this change.
c486b86 - This PR includes a breaking change to using a named export as described here.

// es modules
import { cosmiconfig } from 'cosmiconfig';

// common js
const { cosmiconfig } = require('cosmiconfig');

[davidtheclark]

b2b5d39 - Please look at this commit and the description and verify you agree with this change.

I'm fine with removing tests from the precommit hooks, but I'd like to keep linting and type checking there. I think it's important to check those with every commit, so you don't need to make follow-up commits just to clean-up linting/typing errors.

Overall code looks good. I had a few questions about changes that might not be necessary.

I haven't yet pulled it down and tried out, but will give that a shot soon.

[chrisblossom]

I think it's important to check those with every commit, so you don't need to make follow-up commits just to clean-up linting/typing errors.

This is why I wanted to point this out. I've been taught to commit often so it is easy to go back then merge commits when finished. I just end up using the --no-verify arg. I'll add it back to pre-commit.

EDIT:

I'm fine with removing tests from the precommit hooks

If we keep linting and type errors, we should probably keep tests in there too, right?

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #198 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #198   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files           7      7           
  Lines         210    188   -22     
=====================================
- Hits          210    188   -22

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/cacheWrapper.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/createExplorer.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/getDirectory.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/getPropertyByPath.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/loaders.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/readFile.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 26a961a...615c8f1. Read the comment docs.

[davidtheclark]

If we keep linting and type errors, we should probably keep tests in there too, right?

Tests are significantly slower and don't run only on the staged files, so I'm fine with drawing that line. There aren't too many tests here, since there's not that much code, so I also don't mind keeping the tests in the pre-commit hook. Either way.

[chrisblossom]

Tests are significantly slower and don't run only on the staged files, so I'm fine with drawing that line. There aren't too many tests here, since there's not that much code, so I also don't mind keeping the tests in the pre-commit hook. Either way.

I put the tests along with linting/type checking back into the hook.

I think the last concern (currently) I need to deal with is codecov. Should I remove that change or fix the windows errors?

[davidtheclark]

Yeah, let's undo the codecov change until it becomes necessary; then we can merge when this has the green light.

[chrisblossom]

Yeah, let's undo the codecov change until it becomes necessary; then we can merge when this has the green light.

Sounds good! Let me know if I should put PRs in a different way.

Also, I've been git force pushing to keep the commits clean in case it gets merged. If you want me to stop doing that (and possibly do it before it is merged) let me know.

[davidtheclark]

Also, I've been git force pushing to keep the commits clean in case it gets merged. If you want me to stop doing that (and possibly do it before it is merged) let me know.

Thanks for asking. I don't have any problem with this unless I'm also contributing commits to the branch; since that's not the case here, go for it. I appreciate the effort to make clean commits.