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

chore(deps): lock file maintenance #843

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 25, 2021
Merged

Conversation

renovate[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@renovate renovate bot commented May 17, 2021

WhiteSource Renovate

This PR contains the following updates:

Update Change
lockFileMaintenance All locks refreshed

🔧 This Pull Request updates lock files to use the latest dependency versions.


Configuration

📅 Schedule: "before 5am on monday" (UTC).

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻️ Rebasing: Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because other commits have been found.

👻 Immortal: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get config help if that's undesired.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box.

This PR has been generated by WhiteSource Renovate. View repository job log here.

@renovate renovate bot force-pushed the renovate/lock-file-maintenance branch 2 times, most recently from b36b1bc to 022d0df Compare May 25, 2021 10:23
@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

@G-Rath typescript is unhappy here. Any ideas?

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 25, 2021

I'm on mobile so can't actually see the errors 😅

If you want to assign this to me, I can take a look tomorrow morning

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

I manually refreshed the lockfile on main, just holding back @typescript-eslint/* and it seems happy, so there's some change there.

Screenshot of errors:
image

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

Semi-related - we should move the typecheck into its own run instead of doing it in every single one

@renovate renovate bot force-pushed the renovate/lock-file-maintenance branch from 022d0df to dbee014 Compare May 25, 2021 10:35
@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 25, 2021

@SimenB I thought jest v27 fixed this:

 FAIL  src/rules/__tests__/valid-expect-in-promise.test.ts
  ● Test suite failed to run

    TypeError: Converting circular structure to JSON
        --> starting at object with constructor 'Node'
        |     property 'object' -> object with constructor 'Node'
        --- property 'parent' closes the circle
        at stringify (<anonymous>)

      at messageParent (node_modules/jest-worker/build/workers/messageParent.js:42:19)

Either way, I would really love to get this resolved: is there anyway I can help?

(in saying that, actually iirc it was fixed but then you had to revert it for a good reason that I can't remember)

@G-Rath G-Rath mentioned this pull request May 25, 2021
@renovate renovate bot force-pushed the renovate/lock-file-maintenance branch from cdf9be4 to f57dc32 Compare May 25, 2021 20:29
Copy link
Member

@SimenB SimenB left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(in saying that, actually iirc it was fixed but then you had to revert it for a good reason that I can't remember)

jestjs/jest#10577 (comment)

I haven't got the energy to tackle this one myself at the moment, but if you're up for it I think we essentially wanna add an API to jest-worker that allows us to plug in custom (de)serializers. Then jest-runner could inject one using flatted or whatever to properly serialize circular objects

@@ -187,14 +182,13 @@ export default createRule<unknown[], MessageIds>({
}

const testFunctionBody = body.body;
const [fulfillmentCallback, rejectionCallback] = node.arguments;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should this be a fix (i.e. released as a patch?)?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Na, this is just a refactor as it doesn't actually change the behaviour: since we pick these two items out of the array only to then make a new array out of them which we pass through to a function.

So .slice(0, 2) should be functionally equivalent as that selects the first two items in the node.arguments array.

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

@G-Rath haha, renovate squashed away your commit, sorry! 😅 hopefuully just a cherry-pick away 🙂

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 25, 2021

@SimenB found while hacking around in jest-runner & co 😅:

image

@SimenB SimenB merged commit 9d89c29 into main May 25, 2021
@SimenB SimenB deleted the renovate/lock-file-maintenance branch May 25, 2021 21:36
@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

Yeah, got tired of months and months on pre-release...

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 25, 2021

It should be somewhat easy to setup a lint rule for that - something like TODO(<major number>): that meant you could then enable that rule manually when you wanted to find all the todos that were planned for a specific major.

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 25, 2021

I knew about it, just didn't bother with it 😃 Could've changed the comment I guess

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 27, 2021

and now I can't seem to reproduce it :/

 FAIL   test  src/rules/__tests__/valid-describe.test.ts
  ● valid-describe › valid › x();

    TypeError: Cannot read property 'type' of undefined
    Occurred while linting <input>:1

      42 |         // throw new Error('oh noes!');
      43 |         if (
    > 44 |           node.arguments[1].type === AST_NODE_TYPES.CallExpression &&
         |                             ^
      45 |           !isDescribeCall(node)
      46 |         ) {
      47 |           return;

      at CallExpression (src/rules/valid-describe.ts:44:29)
          at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)
          at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)

@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 24.3.7 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants