-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
Add script to fix package json from build step #410
Add script to fix package json from build step #410
Conversation
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.
LGTM only one small code style issue
|
I suppose we would need to apply the fix there as well
Those versions could be marked as deprecated |
4d03afa
to
ac01115
Compare
… in "files" You can read more here: #405
ac01115
to
eea9cfb
Compare
🎉 This PR is included in version 4.1.3 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
@oscard0m Can you run this through an octoherd script to apply this to all the repositories? Until we get esbuild done so releases aren't broken. The following repos had recent releases:
|
Sure! I will try to make some time during the weekend, but I'm unsure if I can. I'll keep you posted. |
@wolfy1339 Created manual PRs for these two repos to remove friction: |
Resolves #405
Behavior
Before the change?
The released npm package is missing most of the files generated by the build step.
dist-node
,dist-types
,dist-web
... even though they are generated correctly.You can read more about my explanation in the linked issue.
After the change?
I expected npm to read the file patterns correctly so we publish all the necessary files again.
Other information
This is a mix of an issue with
npm@v9
(npm/cli#6164) and the fact we rely onpika
for the build step. Pika has been archived since April 2022 so there is nothing we can do with Pika.I'm opening a discussion to discuss what we should do: octokit/octokit.js#2403
Open questions
If we agree on this solution, we need to plan:
Additional info
Pull request checklist
Because this is kind of a temporary hack, do you think I should add tests + documentation for this?
Does this introduce a breaking change?
No
Pull request type
Because of the problems is giving to users, I'm treating it as a bug:
Type: Bug
. In terms of semantic commit, let me know if I need to changeci()
tofix()