Support yarn v3

[joshwooding]

Since modular-scripts and modular-views.macro depend on yarn workspaces and the command has changed in yarn v2+ the code needs to accommodate for that.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 251b8c2

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages

Name	Type
modular-scripts	Minor
modular-views.macro	Minor

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

[joshwooding]

I'm not too sure on how to add tests internally for modular. But I've tested the changes to modular-scripts in https://github.com/jpmorganchase/ui-toolkit/pull/295

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.3%) to 28.603% when pulling 251b8c2 on joshwooding:support-yarn-v3 into c36dfb5 on jpmorganchase:main.

[LukeSheard]

I've nothing against this - but I think if we're going to add support for multiple package managers we should also considering writing this in a way that will allow us to read npm workspace output from v7.

There's also the question of yarn v2 which is just dropped here, perhaps we need to feature detect which strategy to read workspace information based semver major of the yarn --version output and default to a explode hook which says that the version of yarn for the current worktree is unsupported?

[joshwooding]

I've nothing against this - but I think if we're going to add support for multiple package managers we should also considering writing this in a way that will allow us to read npm workspace output from v7.

There's also the question of yarn v2 which is just dropped here, perhaps we need to feature detect which strategy to read workspace information based semver major of the yarn --version output and default to a explode hook which says that the version of yarn for the current worktree is unsupported?

Technically we can support v2 as well but with the same caveat as only with nodeLinker: node-modules. v2 and v3 formats are the same.

[LukeSheard]

with the same caveat as only with nodeLinker: node-modules

If there are setup caveats so this then they need to be added to modular check to ensure that users don't get weird error messages if there's incorrect setup.

Otherwise I'm happy to go with this, but adding a check for v4 when it's eventually released to throw in that condition.

If we add support for NPM then we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[joshwooding]

with the same caveat as only with nodeLinker: node-modules

If there are setup caveats so this then they need to be added to modular check to ensure that users don't get weird error messages if there's incorrect setup.

Otherwise I'm happy to go with this, but adding a check for v4 when it's eventually released to throw in that condition.

If we add support for NPM then we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Cool, I'll make the changes.

[joshwooding]

@LukeSheard All the changes should be done now? Mind reviewing again?