-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 375
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
chore: Bump deps #1693
chore: Bump deps #1693
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: a694571 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
}); | ||
exports['default-esm'] = Object.assign({}, exports.default, { | ||
'bundle.*.esm.js': 21135, | ||
'bundle.*.esm.js.map': 111771, | ||
'polyfills.*.esm.js': 5721, | ||
'polyfills.*.esm.js.map': 21633, | ||
'route-home.chunk.3cec8.js.map': 483, |
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.
Silly copy/paste error that snuck in.
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.
should be a wildcard?
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 next line is the (correct) wildcard match:
preact-cli/packages/cli/tests/images/build.js
Lines 40 to 41 in 49bba04
'route-home.chunk.3cec8.js.map': 483, | |
'route-home.chunk.*.esm.js': 316, |
This was a non-esm entry that somehow snuck into the esm file list, only jumped out as the file hash changed
The logs have expired by now but the message you quoted is a warning and doesn't impact the runtime.
Ouch. |
It was the CI that you had set up, which treated that as an error and would fail the job.
I was referring to our users (of which I counted ~5), rather than Yarn PNP users in general, who were spotting the Yarn PNP issues. I apologize for not being the kindest, but Yarn 2+, PNP included, has been some of the most frustrating software I've ever had to work around and this PR came after a long day of dealing with its issues. I'll delete that comment though, it's inappropriate to keep around. |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Chore
Did you add tests for your changes?
Existing cover and were updated
Summary
Bumps deps. More lock file line additions than removals is a bit disappointing. Was hoping (maybe foolishly) the opposite would happen.
Nothing user-facing saw a major bump.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No