-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
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
Updated dependencies #316
Updated dependencies #316
Conversation
c9161c3
to
f8ed5fb
Compare
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.
Thanks @vladislavarsenev. Left couple of small suggestions, other than that everything looks good to me 🚀 Thank you ❤️ I would approve after the discussion on open questions in PR.
.yarn/install-state.gz
Outdated
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 this file needed ?
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.
package.json
Outdated
"engines": { | ||
"node": ">18.12" | ||
}, | ||
"packageManager": "[email protected]", |
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.
The packageManager
field is in experimental. I would recommend to not to add. https://nodejs.org/docs/latest-v20.x/api/all.html#all_packages_packagemanager
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've deleted "packageManager" from package.json and removed corepack
from CI since packageManager was mandatory thing for using it. However, I would like to notice the fact that although all these features are experimental, they have been around for 4 years.
I should ask you about --experimental-vm-modules
which I added for launching tests with the newest prettier version and it was necessary since prettier@3 utilizes dynamic import. I tried quickly transpile code to omit --experimental-vm-modules
, but failed. Should I to figure out how to do so without --experimental-vm-modules
?
src/utils/is-sort-imports-ignored.ts
Outdated
@@ -6,6 +6,6 @@ import { getAllCommentsFromNodes } from './get-all-comments-from-nodes'; | |||
export const isSortImportsIgnored = (nodes: Statement[]) => | |||
getAllCommentsFromNodes(nodes).some( | |||
(comment) => | |||
comment.loc.start.line === 1 && | |||
comment.loc?.start.line === 1 && |
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.
May be 😉
comment.loc?.start.line === 1 && | |
comment.loc && comment.loc.start.line === 1 && |
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.
Fixed, but what a benefit to write in this way? It would never equal 1 if comment.loc was undefined.
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 left one comment but it is not a blocker. Thank you so much for taking a look 👍
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.
Just a suggestion (which I think may unblock other things too) is to maybe unpin most of these dependencies?
What do you think @ayusharma?
Because right now we are using exact versions of certain dependencies. I was wondering if we could move away from this.
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.
Do you want to use "compatible with version" or "approximately equivalent" modes? What are benefits of these approaches? I'm curious because last 4 or 5 years we used exact versions on all projects and it was more predictable and convenient.
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 ^ (Compatible with version) is something we want to go for 👍
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.
Do you know about any limitations of using ^ right now?
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 there were some issues when people had different version of the same dependencies on their project? 🤔 Or am I missing something @ayusharma
Updated following dependencies:
Updated tools: