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

addPackageToProject() not using yarn #6784

Closed
Turbo87 opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

addPackageToProject() not using yarn #6784

Turbo87 opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member

Turbo87 commented Feb 17, 2017

the addAddonToProject() and addPackageToProject() blueprint methods are currently not using yarn yet if a yarn.lock file exists. we should probably adjust that.

@RobbieTheWagner
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like from #6790 that we need to do some consolidation here, rather than just simply checking for yarn.lock and using yarn. Do we want to do all that in one fell swoop, or should this still be implemented separately before we consolidate?

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Mar 20, 2017

@rwwagner90 whatever is easier I guess. #6863 should probably be handled first though.

@RobbieTheWagner
Copy link
Contributor

@Turbo87 okay, I can take a stab at these sometime this week, hopefully.

@michielboekhoff
Copy link
Contributor

@rwwagner90 Have you picked this up? Otherwise I might take a crack at it.

@RobbieTheWagner
Copy link
Contributor

@michielboekhoff I haven't yet. Feel free to give it a shot! I won't be able to get to it for a couple days.

@michielboekhoff
Copy link
Contributor

@Turbo87 Could you give me some more info? Right now, it seems like addPackagesToProject and addAddonToProject go through NpmInstallTask, which does use Yarn if a yarn.lock is available. What is the expected behaviour you're after?

@Turbo87
Copy link
Member Author

Turbo87 commented Mar 24, 2017

it seems like addPackagesToProject and addAddonToProject go through NpmInstallTask

@michielboekhoff in that case we can just close the issue. I wasn't sure if that was the case already or not and opened the issue as a reminder to check if it was the case or implement it if necessary. Thanks for figuring it out! 👍

@Turbo87 Turbo87 closed this as completed Mar 24, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants