Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: bc67f8d The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
Claude finished @dario-piotrowicz's task —— View job Changeset ReviewBoth changeset files are missing required descriptions and need improvement:
|
create-cloudflare
@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler
miniflare
@cloudflare/pages-shared
@cloudflare/unenv-preset
@cloudflare/vite-plugin
@cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers
@cloudflare/workers-editor-shared
@cloudflare/workers-utils
wrangler
commit: |
| // Let's make sure to have the latest version of waku which is what | ||
| // the node-loader-cloudflare package expects (if we don't do this the plugin | ||
| // and waku can use a different version of vite and have type conflicts) | ||
| "waku@latest", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be a breaking change for user projects?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mh... maybe 😕
I could avoid bumping the version, the app seems to keep working fine if I don't do that, but there might be type errors (I've been seeing them during manual testing)
I guess it's a question of which issue we prefer to leave to the user:
- likely types errors in the waku conflict file
- possibility to break their project somehow
(PS: maybe it's not relevant but not that waku is still at 0.x so it's not fully stable I guess?)
what do you think? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would err towards not doing it, or to checking the version and not running autoconfig if it's too old
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would err towards not doing it
I can skip it, as I mentioned the app still works even though the types issue
or to checking the version and not running autoconfig if it's too old
I'd probably avoid this, as Brendan commented a few times, it's probably better to proceed and get the user farther then possible instead of stopping earlier. Given that this is a very recoverable issue anyways I'd really opt to plunge ahead anyways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would go with principle of least surprise. I would not expect a platform to upgrade my project's dependencies, particularly when it's a prerelease with breaking changes. Breaking changes could be subtle, and not visible to us in the build
59e2034 to
03e2316
Compare
03e2316 to
bc67f8d
Compare
Fixes https://jira.cfdata.org/browse/DEVX-2328
A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory, but encouraged)