Turbo --filter builds all the packages when a new workspace is added #8125
Assignees
Labels
Comments
alainrk
added
kind: bug
|
This appears to be a result of the code here. When comparing the lockfile against the previous version, we attempt to find all packages that have external dependencies. The previous version of the lockfile doesn't have the package at all (because it was just added), and so we default to considering it a global change. TBD on what the correct behavior here is, but it's likely ignoring missing dependencies from lockfiles in certain situations. |
gsoltis
removed
the
needs: triage
|
@alainrk thanks for the excellent reproduction, it made tracking down what was happening much easier. |
|
Thank you for addressing that @gsoltis 👍 |
gsoltis
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 13, 2024
### Description When comparing lockfiles between revisions to identify what packages have been affected, we treated missing packages in the previous lockfile (added in the new lockfile) as errors, and fell back to considering all packages as affected. This change adds a boolean to determine what the behavior should be when we can't find a package that we expect. When building the package graph, it continues to be an error, as well as when tracing the dependencies of a package we've already found in the lockfile. However, for the first round of packages that we look for in a previous lockfile, we ignore missing packages. This allows us to more gracefully handle comparisons between commits that add new packages. ### Testing Instructions Added an integration test inspired by the repro from the linked issue. Fixes #8125 --------- Co-authored-by: Greg Soltis <Greg Soltis>
Neosoulink
pushed a commit
to Neosoulink/turbo
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2024
) ### Description When comparing lockfiles between revisions to identify what packages have been affected, we treated missing packages in the previous lockfile (added in the new lockfile) as errors, and fell back to considering all packages as affected. This change adds a boolean to determine what the behavior should be when we can't find a package that we expect. When building the package graph, it continues to be an error, as well as when tracing the dependencies of a package we've already found in the lockfile. However, for the first round of packages that we look for in a previous lockfile, we ignore missing packages. This allows us to more gracefully handle comparisons between commits that add new packages. ### Testing Instructions Added an integration test inspired by the repro from the linked issue. Fixes vercel#8125 --------- Co-authored-by: Greg Soltis <Greg Soltis>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Verify canary release
Link to code that reproduces this issue
https://github.com/alainrk/turbo-test
What package manager are you using / does the bug impact?
pnpm
What operating system are you using?
Mac
Which canary version will you have in your reproduction?
1.13.3
Describe the Bug
When we create a new workspace that have node dependencies and build the monorepo using the filter option we have an unexpected behaviour.
What happens is that even though we haven't changed anything in the other workspaces (proper code changes or installing/updating npm packages), when we build with the filter option all the packages are being built regardless the filter used.
In particular this happens locally when we have unstaged changes and we filter using "HEAD" as mentioned in the documentation, or in CI where we use two commits to have the same result (e.g. PR last commit and Base branch commit).
Please note, that if the new workspace has no dependencies, the build behaviour is instead correct.
Expected Behavior
The expected behaviour is that only the new workspace gets built.
To Reproduce
Go to the repository (https://github.com/alainrk/turbo-test), clone it and just run
npm run reproduce-issue, all the other details on how it works are in the README of the repo itself.Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: