Skip to content

Conversation

@ChristianMurphy
Copy link
Member

@ChristianMurphy ChristianMurphy commented Aug 5, 2021

suggested in renovatebot/renovate#9204
this allows working around peternewnham/react-html-parser#80 and gvaldambrini/storybook-router#66 by using npm 6 style peer dependencies, this can be removed when upstream peer conflicts have been resolved

Checklist
Description of change

Address #3259 (comment)

suggested in renovatebot/renovate#9204
this allows working around
peternewnham/react-html-parser#80 and gvaldambrini/storybook-router#66
this can be removed when upstream peer conflicts have been resolved
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
legacy-peer-deps=true No newline at end of file
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

alternatively

Suggested change
legacy-peer-deps=true
force=true

could also work, neither is ideal, as these should be patched upstream

Copy link
Member

@edalex-ian edalex-ian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @ChristianMurphy .

I can see how this would hopefully fix the issue, but arguably it then introduces a new issue - i.e. we'd have to hopefully make sure we remove this in the future.

So that got me wondering, how far in the future?

Well, from looking at the two mentioned repositories it almost looks like both are dead. Indeed, the contributor for the router module has not even done anything on GitHub in general for 2+ years, and the other has not had any substantive updates since 2017!

I wonder if maybe the issue is we need to replace those dependencies with something that is maintained... Or less desirable, fork them and maintain them....

Another thing I've observed in this PR is that some of the direct dependencies in package.json are not correct in package-lock.json - e.g. in package.json we have fp-ts at 2.11.1 and yet package-lock.json still has it at 2.10.5. I wonder how much benefit we might get just be updating package-lock.json. 🤔

@ChristianMurphy
Copy link
Member Author

ChristianMurphy commented Aug 5, 2021

I wonder if maybe the issue is we need to replace those dependencies with something that is maintained... Or less desirable, fork them and maintain them

Agreed, moving to libraries which are still active is the better solution.
I'm fine closing this PR out.

Another thing I've observed in this PR is that some of the direct dependencies in package.json are not correct in package-lock.json - e.g. in package.json we have fp-ts at 2.11.1 and yet package-lock.json still has it at 2.10.5.

In this PR and in the react-front-end folder?
I'm seeing fp-ts 2.11.1 line up between the package.json and package-lock.json. 🤔

wonder how much benefit we might get just be updating package-lock.json. 🤔

It's been a while since we last requested a lock file maintenance PR from #1532, getting another lockfile update would probably be beneficial.

@edalex-ian
Copy link
Member

Strange, I thought there had been some more recent ones. But none the less, we now have #3265 . It's been a bit bumpy, but will see how it goes with GHA and then look closer.

@ChristianMurphy ChristianMurphy deleted the add-legacy-peer-to-react-frontend branch August 6, 2021 22:27
@PenghaiZhang
Copy link
Contributor

PenghaiZhang commented Aug 10, 2021

I have not found any alternative for storybook-router, but do we have to use it ? Can't we just use react-router such as addDecorator(story => <Router>{story()}</Router>);

@edalex-ian
Copy link
Member

I have not found any alternative for storybook-router, but do we have to use it ? Can't we just use react-router such as addDecorator(story => <Router>{story()}</Router>);

Hey! If we can do that and get rid of yet another dependency I'd be pretty happy.

Have you had a chance to try?

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.

3 participants