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

Upgrade to Node 20.12.2 #112

Merged

Conversation

joshuacurtiss
Copy link
Contributor

Upgraded the project to Node 20.12.2, including its GitHub Actions job.

This supersedes PR #111, see that PR for additional notes that were taken into consideration.

Tim Addai and others added 3 commits August 23, 2024 16:21
Fixed uglify configurations to change based on whether we are in debug
mode or not.
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 24, 2024

Coverage Status

coverage: 0.0%. remained the same
when pulling 7463868 on joshuacurtiss:jcurtiss/upgrade-node-20.12.2
into a89750e on silvermine:master.

@joshuacurtiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

One question on this one. I kept the npm prepare script since it was already present. On 8/8/2024, @kmuncie mentioned in email that perhaps I should change it to prepublish for now to be consistent with other projects, and we can migrate to prepare at a future time. What are your thoughts on this?

joshuacurtiss and others added 3 commits August 23, 2024 23:12
Upgrading grunt-contrib-uglify to 5.2.2 ensures that we're consistently
using a modern version of Uglify that can handle modern syntax.
The CI steps need to be updated to use Node 20. While doing so, we
incorporate some additional work:

- Update all actions to use the latest versions that run on Node 20
- Update the test matrix to use our .nvmrc file as one of the Node
  versions to test against
- Check for uncommitted changes after installing dependencies
@onebytegone onebytegone merged commit c7278c8 into silvermine:master Aug 26, 2024
11 checks passed
@onebytegone
Copy link
Contributor

One question on this one. I kept the npm prepare script since it was already present. On 8/8/2024, @kmuncie mentioned in email that perhaps I should change it to prepublish for now to be consistent with other projects, and we can migrate to prepare at a future time. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't really have an option either way. Consistency is good, but prepare is the new way and this works as is.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants