Skip to content

@W-22188550: Add "desktop" build variant#330

Open
anyoung-tableau wants to merge 1 commit intoanyoung/desktop-tool-contextfrom
anyoung/desktop-variant
Open

@W-22188550: Add "desktop" build variant#330
anyoung-tableau wants to merge 1 commit intoanyoung/desktop-tool-contextfrom
anyoung/desktop-variant

Conversation

@anyoung-tableau
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@anyoung-tableau anyoung-tableau commented Apr 22, 2026

These changes introduce a desktop variant which adds a new build entry point and output artifact that only includes the Desktop tools.

@anyoung-tableau anyoung-tableau changed the title Add "desktop" build variant @W-22188550: Add "desktop" build variant Apr 22, 2026
@anyoung-tableau anyoung-tableau marked this pull request as ready for review April 23, 2026 21:21
'tableau-desktop-mcp-server': './build/index-desktop.js',
},
exports: {
'.': './build/index-desktop.js',
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The package wiring is pointing at the wrong file name here, yeah?

The desktop build output is ./build/index.desktop.js, but these package entries use ./build/index-desktop.js, so the published package would resolve to a file the build never produces

Should this be derived from the same source of truth as the build script so they can’t drift?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh good catch. Not sure where that dash came from.

Comment thread src/server.ts
import { TableauAuthInfo } from './server/oauth/schemas.js';

export const serverName = 'tableau-mcp';
export const serverName =
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Boundary Q here: do we want server.ts branching on BUILD_VARIANT at all?

The rest of this stack is trying to keep variant-specific behavior in the entry/variant layer, and putting the conditional in shared code feels like an escape hatch that could spread over time

Should the variant-specific server name come from the entry point or concrete server instead?

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.

2 participants