Skip to content
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

feat(replacements): framer-motion to motion #32844

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

yutakobayashidev
Copy link

@yutakobayashidev yutakobayashidev commented Dec 2, 2024

Changes

Created a replacement rule for framer-motion with its continuation package motion.

Context

The package has been published as motion since version 11.11.12 following the merger between Framer Motion and Motion One.

Proof:

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

  • I have updated the documentation, or
  • No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

  • Code inspection only, or
  • Newly added/modified unit tests, or
  • No unit tests but ran on a real repository, or
  • Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Dec 2, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

"matchDatasources": ["npm"],
"matchPackageNames": ["framer-motion"],
"replacementName": "motion",
"replacementVersion": "11.11.12"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not ideal because it could result in a rollback of versions.

I think that while @mattgperry is releasing both packages in parallel, maybe Renovate shouldn't proactively replace framer-motion with motion. If/once framer-motion is stopped then we no longer have a moving target for the replacement

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should support replace name only. so we can simply leave the replacement version undefined and retain the current version for such use cases

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK so requires a modification to the replacement logic to accept empty replacement version?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so. @zharinov do you know?

Copy link
Collaborator

@zharinov zharinov Dec 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like so 🤷‍♂️

@rarkins
Copy link
Collaborator

rarkins commented Dec 11, 2024

Blocked by #33033

@rarkins rarkins marked this pull request as draft December 11, 2024 06:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants