You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 4, 2022. It is now read-only.
I'm really interested in lank but am working on a project with this structure. I'd like to be able to develop on consuming-app with the libraries from lerna-monorepo linked using lank.
If the current config values of module names are present, then the current behaviour could be used with the siblingPath etc but if a relative or absolute path is set instead, then could that be used to locate the project to be linked? Some more refactoring would be needed of course than just a change to this line.
Please let me know if this idea seems worthwhile and aligns with the aims of the project and I'd be happy to help if needed. Feel free to disregard the suggested approach as I don't know this codebase well.
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yep, lank currently just sets one NODE_PATH addition / infers one project root directory. We've had some other folks asking for multiple root support to better handle monorepos. I'm a bit crazy busy right now, but will try and get out the feature in the coming weeks...
I'm really interested in
lank
but am working on a project with this structure. I'd like to be able to develop onconsuming-app
with the libraries fromlerna-monorepo
linked usinglank
.I think
lank
is currently set to work against this structure?It might be possible to add support for custom project locations without a breaking change if
lank/lib/config.js
Line 68 in 88c3f45
path.resolve
instead ofpath.join
?If the current config values of module names are present, then the current behaviour could be used with the
siblingPath
etc but if a relative or absolute path is set instead, then could that be used to locate the project to be linked? Some more refactoring would be needed of course than just a change to this line.Please let me know if this idea seems worthwhile and aligns with the aims of the project and I'd be happy to help if needed. Feel free to disregard the suggested approach as I don't know this codebase well.
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: