Skip to content

test(ci): use latest 10 LTS release #525

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 13, 2020

Conversation

alexkrolick
Copy link
Collaborator

@alexkrolick alexkrolick commented Apr 11, 2020

Closes #521

.travis.yml Outdated
- 10.0.0
- 12
- lts/dubnium
- lts/erbium
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't know if these are valid versions for config, kicking CI to see

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@codesandbox-ci
Copy link

codesandbox-ci bot commented Apr 11, 2020

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 47f8d0c:

Sandbox Source
kind-thunder-pv0nr Configuration

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 11, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #525 into master will not change coverage by %.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #525   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           23        23           
  Lines          429       429           
  Branches       103       103           
=========================================
  Hits           429       429           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 98e4a9a...47f8d0c. Read the comment docs.

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link
Member

I wouldn’t merge this PR for 2 reasons:

  1. It’s a breaking change
  2. This will run the tests on latest Node 10 and I think we want to make sure the package is working on the lowest supported version.
    This way we can’t be sure it keeps working on 10.0

The breaking change should be reverted upstream instead.

@alexkrolick
Copy link
Collaborator Author

alexkrolick commented Apr 11, 2020

  • It's not a breaking change, this is for our devDeps.
    • Unless you mean the engines field (?)
  • CI already runs on Node 10 and 12 (but is failing on Node 10.0.0), this does the same, but uses the latest 10.x and 12.x releases.
  • Feel free to communicate this upstream but my impression is they had a good reason to raise their minimum supported version due to accuracy issues.

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link
Member

@alexkrolick It's indeed breaking, since you're now saying the package can only be consumed by Node 10.4 instead of 10.0.

CI is testing for CI 10.0 (the minimum supported version), so if we change that to 10 or dubnium the latest 10.x (which is 10.20) will be used.
That will not insure us anymore that our code is working on 10.0.

Right now CI is failing for 10.0, because of the changes in webidl-conversions.
They released a major release for this, so they're good.

The problem is that jsdom changed it's dependency to [email protected] without making this a breaking change on their side (see jsdom/jsdom@fe164b3).

Fixing this in jsdom, would fix our CI again.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

I honestly am not concerned about running CI against the latest 10 version and just hoping we don't break 10.0.0. I think it's pretty unlikely that we will break 10.0.0 and if we do it's not a lot of work to fix it.

@MichaelDeBoey
Copy link
Member

We will know something breaking a lot faster in the process, which will cause less bug reports, ...

Not my call to make, but that's why I think we shouldn't use latest Node 10.x

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

You're not wrong. I just see the risk as low and the reward as high so I'm willing to take it.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

Not only a lot risk, but also a lot impact as well.

@alexkrolick
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We could run CI against the lowest version and all the current lts versions we support. That would be 10.0.0, lts/dubnium, lts/erbium.

But what to do with the engines field? Our JSDOM dep has silently raised the number from 10.0.0 to 10.4.0. Do we want to leave it at 10.0.0, keep running CI against 10.0.0, and have it fail until upstream reverts or patches?

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

Let's leave engines as they are and bump CI just so we can get it working. Just because we're having trouble with our development dependencies doesn't mean other people should suffer the consequences of that.

alexkrolick and others added 2 commits April 13, 2020 11:34
Co-Authored-By: Michaël De Boey <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Michaël De Boey <[email protected]>
@alexkrolick alexkrolick changed the title ci-node-versions test(ci): use latest 10 LTS release Apr 13, 2020
Copy link
Member

@eps1lon eps1lon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Running with the latest node version is in line with how we treat dependencies in CI: We always install the latest version since we don't have a lockfile that pinnes the versions to the minimal possible.

Copy link
Member

@kentcdodds kentcdodds left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

Thanks everyone!

@kentcdodds kentcdodds merged commit aa7ed18 into master Apr 13, 2020
@kentcdodds kentcdodds deleted the alexkrolick-patch-node-versions branch April 13, 2020 18:52
@kentcdodds
Copy link
Member

🎉 This PR is included in version 7.2.2 🎉

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.

Build failure on Node 10
4 participants