Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: update dependencies, remove unused ones #100

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
May 15, 2022
Merged

chore: update dependencies, remove unused ones #100

merged 20 commits into from
May 15, 2022

Conversation

aduh95
Copy link
Contributor

@aduh95 aduh95 commented Apr 17, 2022

  • This PR removes some dependencies that are no longer necessary as long as we're OK with dropping v12.x support (which turns EOL on April 30th).
  • To update the Yarn version used to manage Corepack dependencies, this repo is now using Corepack, so you now need Corepack to build Corepack (but imo that's OK now that Corepack is bundled with all supported Node.js versions).
  • I've updated all outdated npm dependencies and GitHub actions.

@aduh95 aduh95 requested a review from arcanis April 17, 2022 16:20
Copy link
Member

@merceyz merceyz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The prepack script wont work anymore since the file it points to was removed.

We should add an engines property to package.json to actually document the supported Node versions.

@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

arcanis commented Apr 28, 2022

The Windows tests are quite flaky, since they rely on the network 😕

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Apr 28, 2022

The Windows tests are quite flaky, since they rely on the network 😕

It's probably related to the changes in this PR though, as the flakyness seems to be quite consistent, but I haven't a Windows machine available to test that 😕

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Apr 29, 2022

I've just tested it on a Windows machine, and I'm not able to reproduce the failure (tested with Node.js 16.15.0 and Node.js 18.0.0), so it is probably a fluke indeed. Let's wait for Node.js 14.19.2 to be released next week as it will contain the fix for the Jest issue on Node.js 14.x.

@merceyz
Copy link
Member

merceyz commented Apr 29, 2022

The Windows tests are quite flaky, since they rely on the network 😕

Isn't nock supposed to make it not rely on the network?

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented May 4, 2022

It looks like the test flakiness doesn't exist on Node.js 14.x, tests are now green :)

.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +26 to +27
corepack yarn install --immutable
corepack yarn pack
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do you call corepack yarn rather than just yarn (same in the other places)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To make it explicit that we want to use the Corepack version of Yarn, in case Yarn v1.x is installed on the runner. Also, if someone is using this file to know what command to use to run the tests, it's the most likely command to succeed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In that case, perhaps calling corepack enable (or perhaps sudo corepack enable) beforehand would be better - from a CLI user experience point of view, I'd prefer if Corepack didn't require any change, to guarantee reduced friction.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that might be desirable for CLI usage, I'm doubtful it's a valid point in a CI context. The tests already ensures that calling the corepack binary is optional once corepack enable has been run, right?

Adding a corepack enable step in CI seems "wasteful" to me, but if you feel strongly about this, that's fine by me. wdyt?

@aduh95 aduh95 requested a review from arcanis May 9, 2022 20:55
@arcanis arcanis merged commit 6c736c3 into main May 15, 2022
@arcanis arcanis deleted the update-deps branch May 15, 2022 08:35
@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

arcanis commented May 15, 2022

Thanks @aduh95! I'll look to make a release soon, I just need to upgrade the checked-in versions

aduh95 added a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2022
arcanis pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 24, 2022
* chore: update dependencies

Continuation of #100

* git add patch file
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.

3 participants