Skip to content

[DO NOT MERGE] Tracking PR for refactoring and architecture overhaul#688

Open
joepie91 wants to merge 221 commits into
LaserWeb:dev-es6from
joepie91:refactor
Open

[DO NOT MERGE] Tracking PR for refactoring and architecture overhaul#688
joepie91 wants to merge 221 commits into
LaserWeb:dev-es6from
joepie91:refactor

Conversation

@joepie91
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@joepie91 joepie91 commented May 18, 2026

Hi, with LaserWeb seemingly going mostly unmaintained, and based on the conversation in this thread, I'm currently trying my hand at refactoring it for maintainability, and getting it up to current versions of everything, and working in modern environments.

I decided to create this PR as a way for others to track that work more easily. It is not intended to be merged as-is. Among many structural changes on my end (producing very large diffs), I've also pulled in all of the changes that @easytarget has made wholesale, mainly because their branch was already updated towards a working build setup (giving me a working base to start from) and I had to start somewhere. I have not reviewed all of the commits from their fork in detail, and it is possible that it introduces new issues.

Feedback is welcome! I hope to eventually get all this into a state where it can be merged back into the main LaserWeb4 repository, so that development can continue on a more up-to-date base that's easier for new contributors to dive into. It'll be quite a bit of work to refactor everything and get rid of all the deprecated React API usage for example, and I can't make any guarantees right now on how long it'll take, but hopefully even the partial work may already be helpful in figuring out how to move the project forward.

I try to keep changes in self-contained commits wherever possible, so that the tip of the branch is always in a working state, but as I don't have access to any compatible hardware at home, I can't fully test it to ensure that. The PR should update automatically to reflect changes as I make them.

@harlock999
Copy link
Copy Markdown

That's great news. I have been using easytarget fork for quite a while now, along with my own modifications to use a USB MPG. If I had issues, I am unable to tell from other potential causes that could arise from our setup. So for now I'd say I have good confidence in easytarget fork. I also have a modified Laser Cutting path generator that is unoptimized, which is quite important for the type of laser cutting we do.

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.

4 participants