feat(quality): add a flag for very low quality packages #52
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is used as a custom ranking, which acts much like the `deprecated` flag, in a way that it prefers packages with `false` as the value for `badPackage`. The organisations/owners that I chose to give a lower ranking are: - [npmtest](https://yarnpkg.com/en/packages?q=npmtest-a&p=1) - [npmdoc](https://yarnpkg.com/en/packages?q=npmdoc-a&p=1) These authors are just duplicating packages in a way that provides no value alltogether.
|
Just checking, is there an npm tracking issue for this if it's spam? So that we remove this code at some point or add a comment in the code. Also curious about which specific requests were impacted by those spammy packages? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is used as a custom ranking, which acts much like the
deprecatedflag, in a way that it prefers packages withfalseas the value forbadPackage. The organisations/owners that I chose to give a lower ranking are:These authors are just duplicating packages in a way that provides no value alltogether.