-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 590
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
chore: change workspace packages pattern #135
Conversation
@@ -68,12 +68,6 @@ importers: | |||
node-noop: ^1.0.0 | |||
rollup: ^1.20.0 | |||
rollup-plugin-node-resolve: ^5.2.0 | |||
packages/auto-install/test/fixtures/npm: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you can actually see how those were incorrectly included here
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ | |||
importers: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no idea why there are so many lockfile changes. I've just executed pnpm i
after fixing that workspace option - which had to be done, because it affects lockfile. Not sure why any versions here were changed though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch 👍
A little strange situation - some snapshots have failed due to end of line difference (classic crlf vs lf). It works on master though and I haven't touched those files as part of this PR. Any ideas? My guess is that some dependency has changed but I don't know why they have changed in the first place. |
When you changed the scope and removed the (incorrectly) included packages, pnpm recognized that and cleaned up the lockfile. I don't know why your changes are now causing issues in snapshots, because that doesn't happen on other branches. |
59e5d0c
to
92d5294
Compare
92d5294
to
b0f0e8f
Compare
I've "fixed" the problem by normalizing yarn-written files on our end (maybe yarn version has changed on CI in the meantime? although can't find any changelog entry in yarn about a change that could affect this). |
This goes back to #69 and your comment about mocking yarn out. I'm OK if we want to put that off to another PR, but let's put a comment above the changed test lines to explain why that's there. Otherwise it's going to look superfluous to someone not aware of this PR. |
Description
I've noticed that the currently used pattern was overly greedy and has classified such things as potential packages:
Things were working, but including those as workspace packages was not intentional so better to fix that.