fix: calculated cache key based on supportsStaticESM #4248
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ahnpnl
force-pushed
the
fix-calculated-cache-key-for-esm-vs-cjs
branch
from
342a959
to
69325d6
Compare
ahnpnl
force-pushed
the
fix-calculated-cache-key-for-esm-vs-cjs
branch
from
69325d6
to
71142e9
Compare
ahnpnl
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
ts-jestwill generate different transformations ifsupportsStaticESMis true or false. I've noticed the issue when using jest with an esm globalSetup file in my application AND my tests were re-using imported files from the globalSetup.globalSetupfile seems is transpiled withsupportsStaticESMunset here https://github.com/jestjs/jest/blob/4e56991693da7cd4c3730dc3579a1dd1403ee630/packages/jest-transform/src/ScriptTransformer.ts#L781While tests had
supportsStaticESMtrue in my case, and therefore, generating two different outputs.Test plan
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information