| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5010 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 71.30% 71.30%
=======================================
Files 30 30
Lines 1683 1683
Branches 373 373
=======================================
Hits 1200 1200
Misses 413 413
Partials 70 70 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
I do see this in the diff 🤔 But it seems like the build and the tests are passing so I'm not 100% if we need to worry about it or not. Any ideas on why that's happening?
If this is referring to the resolutions key in the package.json, it's for security reasons that we use it. Even though we don't depend on the dependencies directly, this ensures that when folks install code-server, they're not installing packages with security vulnerabilities. (at least that's my understanding) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice work and thank you for doing this! 👏🏼
I'll defer the approval to @code-asher
Sorry, something went wrong.
| # an npm-shrinkwrap file from our yarn lockfile and the current node-modules installed. | ||
| synp --source-file yarn.lock | ||
| npm shrinkwrap | ||
| # HACK: The shrinkwrap file will contain the devDependencies, which by default |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| # HACK: The shrinkwrap file will contain the devDependencies, which by default | |
| # HACK@edvincent: The shrinkwrap file will contain the devDependencies, which by default |
Easier to know who this came while scanning this code.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hahahaha you mean - easier to know who to blame? ;D But yeah makes sense.
Thoughts on the overall idea/hack of removing devDependencies? I think NPM 7/8 will fix this, but with NPM 6 it would force people to use the --production... So IMO it's a worthwile hack?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LOLOL hey you said it not me 😂
I mean...it is hacky but it sounds like it's the best we can do without forcing people to use NPM 7/8. And since we're still forcing people to use Node v14, I don't think we should require NPM 7/8 otherwise you'd have to install Node v14 then upgrade NPM which sounds painful from a UX perspective.
Would love to get @code-asher's thoughts though.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Since I started playing around with code-server (around 3.9.1 IIRC), I've always had this error showing - yet everything always works well. My understanding from the code is that it works because it's technically an optional dependency of @coder/logger if you wanna log to GCP - so if it's not there, nothing bad happens. And that the behavior of peerDependencies is being leveraged to make it optional? @code-asher can likely confirm? I guess the nicer way to fix this is to make that extender (to log to GCP) a separate package, to avoid pulling the @google-cloud/logging package by default.
Yep that makes sense actually now that you say it. I think NPM 6 is choking on lockfiles/shrinkwraps because they are in resolutions without being in dependencies. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Ah, that makes sense now!
That definitely would be a nicer option. The logger work is before my time here but maybe it's something we'll fix in the future.
Ah! Sounds likely then. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
That would be brilliant.
Yup.
Definitely down to do this. tbh I am tempted to just remove the GCP code from the logger since we do not even use it anywhere 😛 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice work!
Something we might want to consider in the future is to shrinkwrap Code's dependencies as well.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
One thought just occurred to me, I am thinking we probably need to change the yarn commands to npm in the post-install script since we removed yarn as a dependency from the docs. code-server/ci/build/npm-postinstall.sh Lines 92 to 109 in 18e19d2 Which I suppose means we need to generate shrinkwraps for the Code package.json files sooner rather than later. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Nice catch! Should we open an issue for this? Happy to do so, just lmk. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I will stop being lazy and do it. 😆 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Fixes #4927
Tried multiple ideas/approaches, this is the least worst I could find. Happy to amend/change things, and at least this will get the discussion going.
Here's a diff from an npm install before the change (left - installing from the public repos) and after (right - installing from the tar.gz generated by the build): https://editor.mergely.com/8tpzCXG6/
As expected, some versions have been bumped down, to actually follow what the yarn.lock had:
For this approach, I'm introducing two new devDependencies:
I tried using npm shrinkwrap directly, but the current NPM and NodeJS versions being used seem to choke when resolutions is used to force newer versions of transitive dependencies we don't depend on (they generate a package-lock.json without a version...). Not even sure why those resolutions are needed...?