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

Resolve failing test scenarios #580

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jan 29, 2024
Merged

Conversation

MelSumner
Copy link
Contributor

@MelSumner MelSumner commented Jan 25, 2024

If merged, this PR tries to resolve some scenarios and tidy up some inconsistencies (spelling errors, dependency versions, instructions, etc).

  • resolved differences where node versions were declared
  • fixed spelling errors
  • removed some dependabot ignores that were no longer relevant
  • updated README
  • updated CONTRIBUTING
  • added some dependencies
  • upgraded some dependencies

Currently, I can't seem to get release/beta/canary to work, but the embroider scenario now passing is an improvement

@MelSumner MelSumner marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2024 21:48
@MelSumner MelSumner requested a review from knownasilya January 25, 2024 22:12
@mansona mansona added the internal maintenance that comes with software label Jan 26, 2024
@mansona mansona changed the title Resolve failing scenarios Resolve failing test scenarios Jan 26, 2024
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
package.json Outdated
@@ -109,10 +108,10 @@
}
},
"engines": {
"node": ">= 20"
"node": ">=20.11.0"
},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should remove the node engine from the package because in the consuming app it doesn't matter what version of node it's using

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should I even leave the "engines" section in there at all then?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no we don't need the engines section any more 👍

@MelSumner
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mansona @knownasilya @ef4 I don't know if I can get farther than this without some help, would y'all take a look at the release/beta/canary failures and LMK what you think? TIA!!

@MelSumner MelSumner mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2024
@MelSumner MelSumner requested a review from mansona January 26, 2024 16:46
@MelSumner MelSumner force-pushed the melsumner/resolve-scenario-issues branch from 12096c1 to 09cba40 Compare January 26, 2024 17:02
@MelSumner
Copy link
Contributor Author

If there's no objections, I'd like to merge this PR, do a release, and then keep working on the release/beta/canary issues so we can at least have some incremental progress.

@MelSumner MelSumner merged commit b16efab into master Jan 29, 2024
3 of 6 checks passed
@MelSumner MelSumner deleted the melsumner/resolve-scenario-issues branch January 29, 2024 13:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
internal maintenance that comes with software
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants