Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 9 Current »

\uD83D\uDDD3 Date

\uD83D\uDC65 Participants

Recording

Please be advised: Frontend Working Group meetings are recorded.

\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

5-10 mins

Avoiding devstack-specific values post js-based config

Brian Smith

  • Relevant issue

  • Relevant PR comment

  • Tentative consensus that config files shouldn’t be committed to MFE repos with hard-coded assumptions about the environment they’re running in

  • A large DEPR conversation about switching to .env to .js: David will type it up in a proper DEPR ticket

5-10 min

Enzyme Deprecation 😞

Ben Warzeski

https://github.com/openedx/wg-frontend/issues/166

5 min

Upgrades status

Jeremy Bowman

  • Node 16->18 upgrade nearly complete (modulo outliers like edx-platform)

  • react-router 5->6 upgrade is well along, draft PRs already in most repos

    • Ok to check in the upgrade if it’s already done

    • David Joy (Deactivated) : is there a way to leverage frontend-platform to make the upgrade saner? (A new component that all MFEs import)

      • Not needed right now

  • React 16->17 upgrade next after that, expected to be straightforward

  • React 17->18 blocked by Enzyme issue

5 min

MFE dev pain points poll

Jeremy Bowman

  • Is anything particularly painful for MFE dev in Tutor?

  • Same for devstack

  • Pondering stub servers/pact as project for summer intern; anything higher priority in this space, or does that work?

✅ Action items

⤴ Decisions

  • (Majority, but not unanimous) When deprecation .env files, their replacement shouldn't be committed to MFE repos with hard-coded assumptions about the environment they're running in
  • No new code should be written in enzyme as of today: the DEPR process will start ASAP

  • No labels