-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 536
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
build(client-azure-client): cleanup dependencies #23650
Conversation
- Removed [unused] production dependencies: `map` and `runtime-utils` - Import `SharedMap` and `SharedTree` from `fluid-framework`. - `SharedTree` is different between `tree` and `fluid-framework` exports. The test code that is using `SharedTree` wants to use the `fluid-framework` `@public` version but was using the `@legacy` version from `tree`. (Really `tree` should expose both, but it is understandable why it is the way it is.) - For best patterns and consistency, `SharedMap` should be pulled from `fluid-framework` instead of `map`. - Then neither `map` nor `tree` are required dependencies and are removed. - Removed dev dependencies: aqueduct
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.
The fluid-framework dependency scares me a little bit but I guess it's probably fine?
@@ -128,6 +124,7 @@ | |||
"cross-env": "^7.0.3", | |||
"eslint": "~8.55.0", | |||
"eslint-config-prettier": "~9.0.0", | |||
"fluid-framework": "workspace:~", |
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.
I think this is probably fine since it's a dev dependency and only for use in testing (to make it more authentic to what a customer would do)?
I do think we should continue to avoid taking non-dev dependencies on fluid-framework in our own packages to keep our layering simple.
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.
I do think we should continue to avoid taking non-dev dependencies on fluid-framework in our own packages to keep our layering simple.
I agree, but hereby present what seems like a legit exception to the rule 😄 : #23647. That's an e2e tests package though, which arguably should be a @fluid-internal
one (I'd say @fluid-private
but I suspect we do need it published internally due to how we run those tests)
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.
Oh agree, was mostly thinking about product (shipping) packages. Anywhere where we are acting "as a customer would" (e2e tests, examples, etc.) the dependency seems fine to me.
that appeared in microsoft#23650 but unrelated to the dependency changes
map
andruntime-utils
SharedMap
andSharedTree
fromfluid-framework
.SharedTree
is different betweentree
andfluid-framework
exports. The test code that is usingSharedTree
wants to use thefluid-framework
@public
version but was using the@legacy
version fromtree
. (Reallytree
should expose both, but it is understandable why it is the way it is.)SharedMap
should be pulled fromfluid-framework
instead ofmap
.map
nortree
are required dependencies and are removed.