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

node-uuid warning in request, replace? #31

Open
dantman opened this issue Apr 19, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

node-uuid warning in request, replace? #31

dantman opened this issue Apr 19, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@dantman
Copy link

dantman commented Apr 19, 2018

The request version in use by the current version of this library / cldr-data uses a version of request with a uuid warning.

warning cldr-data > cldr-data-downloader > request > node-uuid@1.4.8: Use uuid module instead

The request library actually isn't a great library to use. Judging by the fact that this library is pinned to ~ instead of ^ someone has probably already noticed that request has a really poor stance towards breaking changes (they are happy to include breaking changes from deps within minor release changes). Despite that the library is released frequently, meaning you need to update it regularly. The library is also bloated and a bit of a risk, it includes huge piles of dependences that are never used (hawk, aws, oauth, etc...) and each of those can have security bugs that need patching on top of bloating the package with huge deps that are never used.

A simple way of solving the npm warning and general issues with request would be to replace it. One alternative with a somewhat request like API is needle. You could also go with node-fetch.

@rxaviers
Copy link
Owner

I wouldn't mind replacing it, but I believe this is the first problem with it. Alternatively, we could lock the dependency to a fixed version. Do you want to go on with a PR? Thanks

@dantman
Copy link
Author

dantman commented Apr 19, 2018

@rxaviers The current problem is that request is out of date because it's locked to ~, so locking it to an even more specific version will just make the issue worse.

@rxaviers
Copy link
Owner

True. It would require updating it and making potential API adjustments. Anyway, I'm open for a PR replacing it (perhaps with node-fetch). Thanks again

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants