Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update/v1 #484

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 11, 2023
Merged

Update/v1 #484

merged 8 commits into from
Dec 11, 2023

Conversation

ccali11
Copy link
Contributor

@ccali11 ccali11 commented Dec 8, 2023

  1. Renamed landing to www
  2. Added app directory within apps for @DemogorGod to begin implementing his designs from scratch (created the directory using vite create, selected vue, and Typescript and then ported over a few configs from "mvp" web app.
  3. Kept web for reference, but npm run dev from root points to new app workspace

@DemogorGod
Copy link
Contributor

Naming-wise, www and app don't make sense to me. Not sure what the standard is. What is the purpose of naming them www and app? Will the operator, institutional, and pro versions not be considered as apps? I think we should just call them as casimir-landing, casimir-app, casimir-pro, casimir-institutional, and casimir-operators

@shanejearley @ccali11 thoughts?

@shanejearley
Copy link
Contributor

@DemogorGod This is just my biased version of that standard: just putting the apps into a directory with same name as the subdomain. So www is found at www.casimir.co (or the casimir.co short name) as app corresponds with app.casimir.co and so on. As we go, operators, pro, institution, all follow that same standard.

@shanejearley
Copy link
Contributor

@DemogorGod @ccali11 also don't mind keeping landing and web for the package/directory names in those cases since both those names are special cases for the main website and web app respectively. Either works if you want to make a final call @ccali11.

I'll check back on the configuration once we've settled it and then we can merge.

@ccali11
Copy link
Contributor Author

ccali11 commented Dec 11, 2023

@shanejearley -I think we'll keep as is. Let me know if you need any assistance checking configuration.

Also looks like checks are failing (I believe it has to do with the way tsx is installed with node v20 (I thought we were using 18)). Let me know if that's an easy one for you or if you want me to tackle that.

@shanejearley
Copy link
Contributor

@ccali11 pinned the node version in actions to LTS, passing now.

@ccali11
Copy link
Contributor Author

ccali11 commented Dec 11, 2023

You going to approve? Or have more to review?

@shanejearley
Copy link
Contributor

@ccali11 @DemogorGod @hawyar We'll need to update our local node versions as well (LTS switched from 18 to 20).

nvm install --lts

Should do the trick. Also updated prerequisites in README and check. So you'll get an error on install if the version is mismatched.

@shanejearley
Copy link
Contributor

@ccali11 needing to fix one more thing before merge.

Copy link
Contributor

@shanejearley shanejearley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hang on.

@shanejearley shanejearley merged commit 643d2b1 into develop Dec 11, 2023
1 check passed
@shanejearley shanejearley deleted the update/v1 branch December 11, 2023 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants