Prepare ember 6+ support/ view-debug #2650
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This PR prepares the ground for Ember 6 support.
In old Ember versions, components were not co-located with their template. Your component would live in
app/components/and its template inapp/templates/components. The class and the template were registered separately. The ember-inspector testember_debug/view-debug-testwas initially written with this approach in mind.Ember 3.13 introduced co-location. The component and its template would live in
app/components/, and the methodsetComponentTemplatewas introduced to associate the template with the given class. The previous non-co-located structure was still valid, though, so the registration approach in the ember-inspector tests wasn't updated.With Ember 6, non-co-located components are no longer supported, and we can only use the
setComponentTemplateapproach. Tests need to get prepared for this so we can enable Ember 6 on CI.ℹ️ We assume that the ember-inspector only cares about the components in the registry, not how they get registered. That's the reason why changing the registration so it works for 3.13 to 6.x is possible, and we don't need a way to keep testing the old approach.
This PR follows-up to the discussion on #2642 (comment)