Fix for multiple config files (when compiling typescript config files)

[ltetzlaff]

What did you implement:

Closes #439, #490

How did you implement it:

If .stats is an Array check for errors in all compilations.
I got errors twice on the way thus used the last output for these.

How can we verify it:

I use a webpack.config.ts extending another webpack.config.ts.

Todos:

• Write tests
• Write documentation
• Fix linting errors
• Make sure code coverage hasn't dropped
• Provide verification config / commands / resources
• Enable "Allow edits from maintainers" for this PR
• Update the messages below

Is this ready for review?: HELL YEAH
Is it a breaking change?: NO

[hassankhan]

Hi @ltetzlaff, thank you so much for your PR 😄! Sorry you had to deal with the ESLint failures, we had an issue where branch protection checks were being bypassed.

I had a quick look at 25db8de which is where you made the actual change, I believe (do let me know if I'm wrong 👍). On the surface, the change seems great - it would be awesome if you could add a few tests checking/verifying the new behaviour, along with an update to the README.md describing how users can take advantage of this feature.

[ltetzlaff]

Sorry you had to deal with the ESLint failures, we had an issue where branch protection checks were being bypassed.

No worries, I guessed there was just something out of place from a previous PR or so ✌️

add a few tests checking/verifying the new behaviour

Hmm I took a brief look and honestly can't seem to find a good place to insert a test because existing tests seem to throw in intermediate objects of the compilation pipeline. Where do you think should I put an example webpack.config.ts and pack from it? Or would just wrapping one of these intermediate objects in an array in an additional .stats property as in 25db8de#diff-71a1f6779f4a9a1fe69fcec81f85db12R39 suffice?

[RishikeshDarandale]

@hassankhan , @ltetzlaff , any update on this?

[RishikeshDarandale]

@ltetzlaff , Can you please rebase and get ready this one for merge?

@hassankhan , please let us know when can be this included in release.

[HyperBrain]

I will have a look

…

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:01 AM Rishikesh Darandale < ***@***.***> wrote: @ltetzlaff <https://github.com/ltetzlaff> , Can you please rebase and get ready this one for merge? @hassankhan <https://github.com/hassankhan> , please let us know when can be this included in release. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#509?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABKEZXUH6FO25QURLDBFGX3QEOUT5A5CNFSM4HQFCKG2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4H4IVI#issuecomment-521126997>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABKEZXSLZZVCQ3CCVEJP5MTQEOUT5ANCNFSM4HQFCKGQ> .

[RishikeshDarandale]

@HyperBrain, any luck?

[HyperBrain]

LGTM

[HyperBrain]

@RishikeshDarandale @ltetzlaff Finally, I'm preparing the latest update. Due to the other fixes, there are some conflicts in some of the files now. Can you try to fix them, so that I can get this one in? For the package.json, it should be up to date already in master.

[ltetzlaff]

Hi there, sorry for leaving this one barren for so long - will take a look at rebasing it onto master in the next days, feel free to do so before if you need it for the release or so ✌️🔜

[RishikeshDarandale]

@ltetzlaff , looks like this change will not work correctly. if package.individually is set to true, plugin is creating an multi-compile option for each individual function.

Thus, according to me if the multi-compile option is provided as below, then package.individually should not be allowed/permitted. When multi-compile option is provided, then it;s the responsibility of client to create the package as per one the need.

module.exports = [
  {
    entry: ./src/server.js',
    target: 'node',
    externals: [nodeExternals()],
    output: {
      libraryTarget: 'commonjs',
      path: path.join(__dirname, '.webpack'),
      filename: '[name].js'
    },
  },
  {
    entry: './src/client.js',
    target: 'node',
    output: {
      libraryTarget: 'commonjs',
      path: path.join(__dirname, '.webpack'),
      filename: '[name].js'
    },
  },
];

@hassankhan / @HyperBrain , let me know your thoughts as well.

I have made these changes in validate.js for the above one. I have to still verify all permutation and combination if this multi-compile change.

[RishikeshDarandale]

@HyperBrain , @hassankhan , @ltetzlaff I have created the new pull request #537 with my understanding. Please verify and let me know your comments!

[miguel-a-calles-mba]

Is this PR still needed? Or do we use #537 instead?

[ltetzlaff]

I'm closing this in favor of #537, looks better to me ✌️