Add consumer-style testing for Turf#3065
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced May 19, 2026
Draft
We add a handful of packages to test using Turf in ways that we might expect a consumer to have. Specifically we test from CommonJS and ESM module types, and we test Node native consuming as well as TypeScript targeted towards NodeJS and bundler consumers. This should hopefully give us more assurance that the package.json entries are actually working as expected and we aren't accidentally breaking compatibility.
…t in the first place
b168518 to
9bfc6fd
Compare
6 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
We add a handful of packages to test using Turf in ways that we might expect a consumer to have. Specifically we test from CommonJS and ESM module types, and we test Node native consuming as well as TypeScript targeted towards NodeJS and bundler consumers.
This should hopefully give us more assurance that the package.json entries are actually working as expected and we aren't accidentally breaking compatibility.
Note: some of the other changes originally pushed to this branch were rebased out into the other linked PRs #3066 and #3067.