-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
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
Bump dependencies (uuid, debug, dev-deps) #217
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
chrisveness
commented
Nov 2, 2021
- tests: fix ".end() was called twice" in contextstore.test.js
- use eslint:recommended rather than Egg config
- eslint-disable no-prototype-builtins for hasOwnProperty(CONTEXT_SESSION) (?)
- eslint-disable require-yield in cookie.test.js (?)
- replace defunct istanbul with c8
- tests: fix ".end() was called twice" in contextstore.test.js - use eslint:recommended rather than Egg config - eslint-disable no-prototype-builtins for hasOwnProperty(CONTEXT_SESSION) (?) - eslint-disable require-yield in cookie.test.js (?) - replace defunct istanbul with c8
npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: Please upgrade to version 7 or higher. Older versions may use Math.random() in certain circumstances, which is known to be problematic. See https://v8.dev/blog/math-random for details. |
}, | ||
"engines": { | ||
"node": ">=7.6" | ||
"node": ">=10.0.0" |
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.
This makes this a breaking change, which'd mean a new major version - could be worth trying to split this PR up into a couple of smaller ones so non-breaking changes can be landed?
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.
From memory, I think it was dev-deps that prompted the engines.node bump, though I didn't make particular note of it.
I've never been quite sure about whether the engines.node should relate to app + dependencies, or app + dependencies + devDependencies.
I think the only substantive changes (ignoring dev-deps) are uuid & debug; [email protected] specifies engines.node as >=6.0, uuid doesn't mention engines.node.
I think I bumped engines.node to 10+ since eslint required that, but whether engines.node should depend on a devDependency, I'm not sure!
To further complicate the issue, [email protected] specifies engines.node as >=12: but having just run a test, the koa-session example.js
runs perfectly well on [email protected].
If the koa-session maintainers feel it worthwhile, the deps could be bumped separately from the dev-deps, but perhaps engines.node should not depend on devDependencies, in which I was mistaken in bumping it up to 10.0.0 and it can validly stay on 7.6.0?
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 think it's ok to upgrade node to 10.0.0 since node<10 is already out of maintenance for a long time.
@@ -394,12 +394,11 @@ describe('Koa Session External Context Store', () => { | |||
|
|||
request(server) |
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.
if we remove done
, we should return request
to ensure this promise resolved.
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.
Is it correct like this? (I'm not familiar with this mode of usage of mocha).
}, | ||
"engines": { | ||
"node": ">=7.6" | ||
"node": ">=10.0.0" |
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 think it's ok to upgrade node to 10.0.0 since node<10 is already out of maintenance for a long time.
BUMP! Almost a year since I think we agreed this PR is ok? |