-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 177
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
Add caveat about pnpm v9 lockfile incompatibility #1494
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
||
<img width="796" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d1461506-d3e7-42da-b9be-2b53a87f79f1" /> | ||
|
||
We have [requested](https://github.com/pnpm/spec/issues/6#issuecomment-2588100182) more details on the pnpm v9 lockfile spec and hope to be able to prioritize this improvement soon. |
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.
This is unnecessary. I would prefer customers actually ask us to do this in order to help prioritize it rather than letting them think "Well, it says it's coming soon - I'll say nothing." which stifles that signal.
My comments about the spec weren't meant to say that we need more details. It was only to point out why the spec may be a bit sparse: the format of pnpm-lock.yaml
likely isn't meant for consumption by anything but pnmp
. In general, we want the CLI to focus on supporting what's out in the wild rather than just the spec anyhow.
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.
Makes sense, I can remove that. I'll explicitly call out that they should email us if this is affecting them :)
I thought the spec was actually more sparse than the previous spec (v6), that's why I put it that way. I could be wrong!
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.
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure how to read their specs. Like maybe they each only describe differences between the spec and the previous spec? In any case, the dev deps thing is what I really want to prioritize fixing - if we can explain the additional with catalog
as a version then it's unfortunate but still usable. Obviously I'd like to fix both things though.
Could somebody help me figure out why the integration test is failing? https://github.com/fossas/fossa-cli/actions/runs/12756509884 |
Overview
Updating docs to disclaim pnpm v9 incompatibility.
Acceptance criteria
Docs updated
Testing plan
n/a
Risks
n/a
Metrics
n/a
References
https://fossa.atlassian.net/browse/ANE-2177
Checklist
docs/
.docs/README.ms
and gave consideration to how discoverable or not my documentation is.Changelog.md
. If this PR did not mark a release, I added my changes into an## Unreleased
section at the top..fossa.yml
orfossa-deps.{json.yml}
, I updateddocs/references/files/*.schema.json
AND I have updated example files used byfossa init
command. You may also need to update these if you have added/removed new dependency type (e.g.pip
) or analysis target type (e.g.poetry
).docs/references/subcommands/<subcommand>.md
.