Add typescript loader to foreman

[nadjaheitmann]

https://github.com/ATIX-AG/foreman_ansible_director

This plugin add a novelty in Foreman development which is using Typescript for the front end. For this to work, we need to package some additional typescript-related packages.

The related Foreman PR can be found here:
theforeman/foreman#10899

Summary (from RFC):

• Integration into Foreman nightly was done in less than 100 line diff due to Webpack already providing a very wrong base.
• Usage of TypeScript remains optional
• There are no changes required to the way Foreman packages are built and delivered.
• No existing workflow or plugins are broken

The related discourse RFC:
https://community.theforeman.org/t/rfc-opt-in-typescript-support-for-the-foreman-frontend-stack/45928

[nadjaheitmann]

@theforeman/packaging Can we get a review here, please?

[adamruzicka]

This was generated by one of the templates, right? SCLs are a thing of the distant past :/

[nadjaheitmann]

I know, all of the npm package spec files look like this 🙈 The spec file was generated with this script: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/blob/rpm/develop/add_npm_package.sh

I assume it is this line and npm2rpm tool that also generates the spec file: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/blob/rpm/develop/add_npm_package.sh#L60

I have locally checked out the tool and ran the script. There is even --scl' option for npm2rpm if I see it correctly: https://github.com/theforeman/npm2rpm/blob/2acb4a459a75a36197cc13886d7aa08b9cf83302/bin/npm2rpm.js#L28

But this option is not set in the script.

[ekohl]

This was generated by one of the templates, right? SCLs are a thing of the distant past :/

theforeman/npm2rpm#87

[nadjaheitmann]

I updated my PR using @ekohls PR.

[nadjaheitmann]

@theforeman/packaging Any chance we get a review here?

[ogajduse]

I don't see a reason to block this PR from merging. However, before I approve it here, I'd like to discuss first what work is expected from @theforeman/packaging to be done when/if we merge this.

[nadjaheitmann]

I don't see a reason to block this PR from merging. However, before I approve it here, I'd like to discuss first what work is expected from @theforeman/packaging to be done when/if we merge this.

Thanks @ogajduse , good call! As mentioned in the discourse, I assume that the packages need regular updates and I suggest that @theforeman/atix jumps in here to leverage the workload from the packaging team or jump in if something really needs to be fixed. I added a third commit that adds the ATIX team as code owners for those two packages.

[ogajduse]

Thank you, @nadjaheitmann, for putting the effort into this. Everything looks good to me. In case the patch was (co-)created with theforeman/npm2rpm#87, should we merge it first, release a new npm2rpm version, and make sure we use the new version in foreman-packaging, before we merge this PR?

[nadjaheitmann]

Thank you, @nadjaheitmann, for putting the effort into this. Everything looks good to me. In case the patch was (co-)created with theforeman/npm2rpm#87, should we merge it first, release a new npm2rpm version, and make sure we use the new version in foreman-packaging, before we merge this PR?

Yes, this repo would profit so much from a new npm2rpm release.

[ogajduse]

@ekohl How do you see us proceeding with theforeman/npm2rpm#87? Would you find time to merge the PR and release a new version? Would you like @theforeman/packaging to handle something?