As of v10, the `undecorated-classes-with-decorated-fields` migration
generally deals with undecorated classes using Angular features. We
intended to run this migation as part of v10 again as undecorated
classes with Angular features are no longer supported in planned v11.
The migration currently behaves incorrectly in some cases where an
`@Injectable` or `@Pipe` decorated classes uses the `ngOnDestroy`
lifecycle hook. We incorrectly add a TODO for those classes. This
commit fixes that.
Additionally, this change makes the migration more robust to
not migrate a class if it inherits from a component, pipe
injectable or non-abstract directive. We previously did not
need this as the undecorated-classes-with-di migration ran
before, but this is no longer the case.
Last, this commit fixes an issue where multiple TODO's could be
added. This happens when multiple Angular CLI build targets have
an overlap in source files. Multiple programs then capture the
same source file, causing the migration to detect an undecorated
class multiple times (i.e. adding a TODO twice).
Fixes#37726.
PR Close#37732
Enables the `ng update` migrations for v10. Status for individual
migrations:
**undecorated-classes-with-di**.
This migration dealt exlusively with inherited constructors and
cases where a derived component was undecorated. In those cases,
the migration added `@Directive()` or copied the inherited decorator
to the derived class.
We don't need to run this migration again because ngtsc throws if
constructor is inherited from an undecorated class. Also ngtsc will
throw if a NgModule references an undecorated class in the declarations.
***undecorated-classes-with-decorated-fields***
This migration exclusively deals with undecorated classes that use
Angular features but are not decorated. Angular features include
the use of lifecycle hooks or class fields with Angular decorators,
such as `@Input()`.
We want to re-run this migration in v10 as we will disable the
compatibility code in ngtsc that detects such undecorated classes
as `@Directive`.
**module-with-providers**:
This migration adds an explicit generic type to `ModuleWithProviders`.
As of v10, the generic type is required, so we need to re-run the
migration again.
**renderer-to-renderer2**:
We don't need to re-run that migration again as the
renderer has been already removed in v9.
**missing-injectable**:
This migration is exclusively concerned with undecorated
providers referenced in an `NgModule`. We should re-run
that migration again as we don't have proper backsliding
prevention for this yet. We can consider adding an error
in ngtsc for v10, or v11. In either way, we should re-run
the migration.
**dynamic-queries**:
We ran this one in v9 to reduce code complexity in projects. Instead
of explicitly passing `static: false`, not passing any object literal
has the same semantics. We don't need to re-run the migration again
since there is no good way to prevent backsliding and we cannot always
run this migration for future versions (as some apps might actually
intentionally use the explicit `static: false` option).
PR Close#36921
In version 10, undecorated base classes that use Angular features need
to be decorated explicitly with `@Directive()`. Additionally, derived
classes of abstract directives need to be decorated.
The migration already handles this for undecorated classes that are
not explicitly decorated, but since in V9, abstract directives can be
used, we also need to handle this for explicitly decorated abstract
directives. e.g.
```
@Directive()
export class Base {...}
// needs to be decorated by migration when updating from v9 to v10
export class Wrapped extends Base {}
@Component(...)
export class Cmp extends Wrapped {}
```
PR Close#35339
We don't have an integration test for the `undecorated-classes-with-decorated-fields
migration. For consistency and to cover for the latest changes, we add
it to the `ng update` integration test.
PR Close#35339
In View Engine, providers which neither used `useValue`, `useClass`,
`useFactory` or `useExisting`, were interpreted differently.
e.g.
```
{provide: X} -> {provide: X, useValue: undefined}, // this is how it works in View Engine
{provide: X} -> {provide: X, useClass: X}, // this is how it works in Ivy
```
The missing-injectable migration should migrate such providers to the
explicit `useValue` provider. This ensures that there is no unexpected
behavioral change when updating to v9.
PR Close#33709
We should not migrate the reference from `useExisting`. This is because
developers can only use the `useExisting` value as a token. e.g.
```ts
@NgModule({
providers: [
{provide: AppRippleConfig, useValue: rippleOptions},
{provide: MAT_RIPPLE_OPTIONS, useExisting: AppRippleConfig},
]
})
export class AppModule {}
```
In the case above, nothing should be decorated with `@Injectable`. The
`AppRippleConfig` class is just used as a token for injection.
PR Close#33286
Improves the `missing-injectable` migration test case in the
`ng_update_migrations` integration test by adding scenarios
for the recent changes that have been made to the migration.
e.g. 5557dec120
PR Close#33223
Adds a new test to the `ng_update_migrations` that ensures
that the `missing-injectable` migration works properly in a
real CLI project. Additionally this ensures that the
`missing-injectable` and `undecorated-classes-with-di` migrations
play nicely together.
PR Close#32349
Creates anew integratin test for `ng-update` migrations. The
integration test uses an Angular CLI project that will be updated
using the latest package output symlinked from then `./dist/packages-dist`.
This allows us to ensure that migrations work in real CLI projects.
Another big benefit is that the Angular version is updated to the
latest. This is something we couldn't replicate in unit tests but
is extremely important. It's important because compilation could
break with newer Angular versions (note that migrations are always
executed after the new angular version has been installed).
PR Close#32349
Andrew Kushnir
JiaLiPassion
Paul Gschwendtner
George Kalpakas