Skip to content

Revert "chore(deps): update dependency docusaurus-plugin-llms to ^0.4.0 (#5637)"#5640

Merged
thomhurst merged 1 commit intomainfrom
revert-5637-docusaurus-plugin-llms
Apr 20, 2026
Merged

Revert "chore(deps): update dependency docusaurus-plugin-llms to ^0.4.0 (#5637)"#5640
thomhurst merged 1 commit intomainfrom
revert-5637-docusaurus-plugin-llms

Conversation

@thomhurst
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Reverts #5637.

Summary

  • Reverts the bump of docusaurus-plugin-llms from the prior version to ^0.4.0 in docs/package.json and docs/yarn.lock.

Test plan

  • docs build succeeds on the reverted version

@thomhurst thomhurst merged commit 604205d into main Apr 20, 2026
12 of 13 checks passed
@thomhurst thomhurst deleted the revert-5637-docusaurus-plugin-llms branch April 20, 2026 19:57
@codacy-production
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes. Give us feedback

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@claude claude Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This is a clean, focused revert of #5637 — downgrading docusaurus-plugin-llms from ^0.4.0 back to ^0.3.1.

What looks good

  • The revert is surgical: only docs/package.json and docs/yarn.lock are touched, exactly matching the original bump's footprint.
  • The yarn.lock entry is properly updated to the resolved hash and integrity for 0.3.1, so the lockfile is consistent.

One thing to note

The PR description doesn't explain why 0.4.0 needed reverting (build failure? breaking API change? incompatibility with the current Docusaurus version?). Adding a brief note in the body or a follow-up comment would help future readers understand whether it's safe to retry the upgrade later, and under what conditions.

The test plan checkbox (docs build succeeds on the reverted version) is still unchecked — worth confirming that before merging so there's confidence the revert actually resolves the issue.

Otherwise, LGTM.

This was referenced Apr 21, 2026
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.

1 participant