chore: upgrade to yarn v4 #7230
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Dependency ReviewThe following issues were found:
|
| @@ -70,5 +74,6 @@ | |||
| "react-router": "6.23.1", | |||
| "replace-in-file": "7.2.0", | |||
| "typescript": "4.8.4" | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| "packageManager": "[email protected]" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to do @4 here in case there's a vulnerability and a patch release?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a fair question, but the regex validator here requires an absolute version. Though, you're allowed to do ^4.2.2 I believe.
| @@ -50,9 +50,9 @@ jobs: | |||
| YARN_1="yarn --mutex network --cwd ./current" | |||
| YARN_2="yarn --mutex network --cwd ./main" | |||
|
|
|||
| $YARN_1 install --ignore-scripts &> /dev/null && $YARN_1 build:backend --strictNullChecks true 2> .stderr-current > .out-current & | |||
| $YARN_1 install &> /dev/null && $YARN_1 build:backend --strictNullChecks true 2> .stderr-current > .out-current & | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can ignore this file as it's not working as intended... although we could test if running it with yarn 4 fixes it 🤔
chriswk
force-pushed
the
chore/yarnv4
branch
2 times, most recently
from
52bd795
to
0ac291f
Compare
chriswk
force-pushed
the
chore/yarnv4
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b5d5ee8
to
d652f8f
Compare
| @@ -17,5 +17,5 @@ jobs: | |||
| uses: actions/dependency-review-action@v4 | |||
| with: | |||
| fail-on-severity: moderate | |||
| allow-licenses: Apache-2.0, MIT, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, ISC, CC0-1.0, Unlicense | |||
| allow-licenses: Apache-2.0, MIT, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, ISC, CC0-1.0, Unlicense, Null, BlueOak-1.0.0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like adding Null here is making the action fail. Maybe an alternative solution is to add jackspeak to allow-dependencies-licenses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, good catch, it seemed like Null was a license ID, but looking at the license list, that's a non-existing identifier. Will update.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
I see the dependency review still failing. this is due to the spdx parser not handling packages with dual licensing ( |
This has been on our TODO list for a long time, I guess using v6 as a linchpin to finally do it isn't too bad. This is an initial attempt just following official step-by-step on yarn's homepage.