You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Some V1 ember addons are resolving as incorrect peer dependencies. This makes it impossible for us to safely convert them to v2 format.
👇 👇 👇
👉 See https://github.com/embroider-build/embroider/blob/main/docs/peer-dependency-resolution-issues.md for an explanation of the problem and suggestions for fixing it.
👆 👆 👆
[email protected] -> [email protected]
sees peerDep [email protected]
at /home/runner/work/ember-shepherd/ember-shepherd/node_modules/.pnpm/[email protected]_@[email protected]_@[email protected][email protected][email protected]/node_modules/ember-source
but [email protected] is using [email protected]+8f23aaf8
at /home/runner/work/ember-shepherd/ember-shepherd/node_modules/.pnpm/ember-source@https+++s3.amazonaws.com+builds.emberjs.com+beta+shas+8f23aaf87af8a0f8958e462b51_n5h4tv7lxozsvmzhezyyeihkoe/node_modules/ember-source
After talking with @NullVoxPopuli he recommended some specific .npmrc settings to fix it.
Should we add some of this to the blueprints to avoid these issues for others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
##################### super strict mode####################auto-install-peers=falsestrict-peer-dependents=trueresolve-peers-from-workspace-root=false################# Optimizations################# Less strict, but required for tooling to not barf on duplicate peer trees.# (many libraries declare the same peers, which resolve to the same# versions)dedupe-peer-dependents=truepublic-hoist-pattern[]=ember-source
################# Compatibility################# highest is what everyone is used to, but# not ensuring folks are actually compatible with declared ranges.resolution-mode=highest
I hit a weird issue today when updating an addon:
After talking with @NullVoxPopuli he recommended some specific
.npmrc
settings to fix it.Should we add some of this to the blueprints to avoid these issues for others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: