Removed uncommon syntax for post-processors #2
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
|
Hi @jeffturcotte, your PR looks promising! Could you please provide me with the version of uglify that's causing all this fuzz? I'll more than gladly merge your work after testing against said version 👍 Cheers! |
|
Upon further review, the problem is technically with any pre-1.0.0 version of uglifyjs-webpack-plugin and not uglify itself. IMO, the fix is stylistically better than what is in there now from the older forked lib. So it's an improvement either way. Thanks. |
|
@jeffturcotte, I agree the fix is stylistically better. I was just really curious to have a test case; do excuse my OCD. I'll be merging soon and publishing |
|
Tested against |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Re: #1, while this is technically an uglify issue (and apparently fixed in some newer versions?), the issue is with the use of an object property as the index variable in a for-in loop. Maybe there was a programmatic reason for this in an earlier version of this lib? I saw no reason to keep it as is. Altering the syntax to something more common fixed the uglify processing issue for me.
In my case, I'm dependent on a 3rd party build tool that is itself dependent on a certain version of uglify. Upgrading uglify would not be convenient, so I hope you accept this change.
Thanks for the great lib!