-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
fix: add missing peer dependencies #9744
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
[Question] Shouldn't this also be listed in
peerDependencies
? Even if listing it inpeerDependenciesMeta
implicitly adds it there, it feels odd to me to make that implicit.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.
I just copied this from
type-utils
(which is where the missing dep for typescript comes from), which also does not list it as an explicit peerdeptypescript-eslint/packages/type-utils/package.json
Lines 64 to 68 in 42d275c
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.
Ha, nice, so this might be an existing issue in that package then? My vote is to fix in both packages.
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.
Just came here to say that appearently at least both Yarn and pnpm have opted in the past to have "
peerDependenciesMeta
withoutpeerDependencies
" imply a peer dependency on*
. This was done due to some (legacy?) npm behavior regarding peer dependencies, making package authors hesistant to list them. See pnpm/pnpm#2128.But it's probably a better practice to explicitly list them; and given the age of the referenced issue probably safe enough as well.
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 reason we used
peerDependenciesMeta
withoutpeerDependencies
was because there were versions of npm that did not supportpeerDependenciesMeta
. This meant that when we used an explicitpeerDependencies
then users would be spammed with warnings saying they didn't have TS installed. This was a problem as some big packages included our plugins by default but only used them if the user opted in to TS which caused non-TS users to get spammed with missing peer dep errors.A this point we could probably also include the explicit
peerDependencies
on TS but also there's no harm in not including it and having it inferred to ensure that nobody gets spammed with logs.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.
Do you know if
npm
also shares this behavior ofpeerDependenciesMeta
implyingpeerDependencies
? From a cursory search of the npm sources it seems to me like it doesn't: https://github.com/npm/cli/blob/75a3f1228865f426d8790be27f1258e501f2c450/workspaces/arborist/lib/node.js#L859-L871Anyways, what do we think of merging this PR first and moving the discussion about whether or not to list an explicit peerdep to a different issue? We don't need to block fixing users' warnings on figuring out the proper manifest declarations 😅
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.
I'm 👍 on that. If nobody else weighs in with a contrary opinion by our weekly release midday Monday EST then we can just merge as-is.
Now that you mention it, I do like the idea of having one release just adding
peerDependenciesMeta
, then a subsequent release addingpeerDependencies
on top. Just in case there's some bizarre edge case bug with the latter.