Is VS Code v1.110.0 a necessary requirement? #1801
Replies: 3 comments
|
I don't recall why it was upgraded to be honest, please test downgrading it. I am sure more users will have the same question. |
|
I went through 3.0.1 to back up your reading. I couldn't find anything that needs more than 1.75, so 1.103.1 should be fine.
The bump itself is just To test on OpenVSCode Server 1.103.1 without waiting for a release:
If that holds up, a PR that lowers |
|
I checked the runtime dependencies and ran compatibility checks on VS Code 1.82.0. My recommendation is Two constraints are missing from the type-definition argument:
With the manifest constraints lowered, these checks passed on an isolated VS Code 1.82.0 on macOS:
I found no requirement for 1.110. These were targeted compatibility checks, not a complete regression run. Lowering both extensions to OpenVSCode Server 1.103.1 exceeds both existing dependency requirements, so lowering just the R extension’s manifest should allow testing there. That specific server environment still needs the attach/session, plot and help checks suggested above. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Question for you @randy3k:
Throughout the work on 3.0.0, I must confess that I hadn't really noticed that the extension requires VS Code 1.110 or later.
Unfortunately, this is now blocking me at work. We run OpenVSCode Server (not my preferred choice, but a bigger engineering challenge than I'm able to fight rn), and the newest version available to us is 1.103.1. Changing platforms isn't a realistic option in the short term, so I'm stuck on vscode-R 2.8.x :'-(
AFAICT, this requirement came in with the session watcher rewrite in 4e1ca8b (#1684). I couldn't find a stated reason for the bump in the commit, the PR or the changelog. At the same time, I don't think that vscode-R 3.0.0+ actually uses any API newer than 1.75? I asked Claude to investigate and it agreed, pointing out that
@types/vscodeis still pinned at^1.75.0, so any newer API would fail to type-check.Was 1.110 chosen for a specific reason (a runtime behavior, a webview or terminal feature, or similar), or was it simply the current release at the time? If it's the latter, could we entertain a PR that lowers the minimum (for example to
^1.75.0or^1.100.0)?I'm happy to test 3.x on 1.103.1 and report back.
All reactions