-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Just use npm instead of yarn #394
Comments
CC @sebschrader |
Marking as high-priority because having a working CI again would be immeasurably helpful. |
To speed things up in the CI the |
Also a good read: https://engineering.mixmax.com/blog/to-yarn-and-back-again-npm/ |
A quick change to For instance:
…which appears to be caused by |
Fixes #394 This entails - Removing `yarn` as an angine - Adding the `package-lock.json` - Replacing yarn usages with NPM usages - making `webpack` known to npm as a build script - Renaming `20_yarn` entry hook → `20_npm` - Updating webpack (which is technically not doing anything due to minor compat matching)
Refs #394 Because we have the `package-lock.json` checked in, `npm ci` is favorable. If one desires to add or update a package, the intended workflow is to change the `package.json`, execute `npm install locally, and check in the appropriate changes in the lock file.
The switch to yarn was a good decision in the context of replacing Bower. However, currently it does not seem to be necessary to add another layer of abstraction onto npm. If I'm not mistaken, all the packages we need (in particular, bootstrap-table) are packaged for npm as well. Also, a bug in yarn that does not seem to be fixed at any time completely breaks our CI.
To reiterate: yarn…
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: