feat: support for postcss 8 plugins

[m4thieulavoie]

Notable Changes

This PR is aiming to support postcss 8 plugins. Not sure if I cover everything in there, or if I should be adding any additional tests

Commit Message Summary (CHANGELOG)

Support for postcss 8 plugins

feat: support for postcss 8 plugins

Type

• Feature

SemVer

• Feature (:label: Minor)

Issues

• Fixes PostCSS 8 support #199

Checklist

• Lint and unit tests pass with my changes
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective/works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
• Any dependent changes are merged and published in downstream modules

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 98.058% when pulling efc9ebb on m4thieulavoie:feat/support-postcss-8-plugins into fda5f4a on michael-ciniawsky:master.

[ai]

@michael-ciniawsky can you give me access to the repo and npm package?

[RyanZim]

Do Not Merge; this breaks linting, and I am 99% sure this does not function correctly.

[m4thieulavoie]

Do Not Merge; this breaks linting, and I am 99% sure this does not function correctly.

Can you expand on that? Happy to adjust

[RyanZim]

Refs postcss/postcss#1410

Can you expand on that? Happy to adjust

Specifically, I'm not sure what this logic is doing, but I'm pretty sure it's not doing its intended purpose: https://github.com/michael-ciniawsky/postcss-load-config/blob/b03d1950e243f16cd3feb6d9948d35de37cefe37/src/plugins.js#L59-L61 Also, not sure what this plugin.plugins check is even there for. I tested last night, it wasn't broken as I expected, but I'm still not sure this logic is correct; would need to sit down and look closer to be sure.

[m4thieulavoie]

Refs postcss/postcss#1410

Can you expand on that? Happy to adjust

Specifically, I'm not sure what this logic is doing, but I'm pretty sure it's not doing its intended purpose:

https://github.com/michael-ciniawsky/postcss-load-config/blob/b03d1950e243f16cd3feb6d9948d35de37cefe37/src/plugins.js#L59-L61

Also, not sure what this plugin.plugins check is even there for. I tested last night, it wasn't broken as I expected, but I'm still not sure this logic is correct; would need to sit down and look closer to be sure.

Alright, sounds like I'll need to wait for you to come back to me with your conclusion. Please keep me posted, or feel free to scrap that PR with a proper fix if that's easier for you 👍

[ai]

We need a different way to fix #202