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/kbdev 1206 update pori imports #78

Merged
merged 38 commits into from May 15, 2024

Conversation

elewis2
Copy link
Collaborator

@elewis2 elewis2 commented May 3, 2024

No description provided.

@elewis2 elewis2 changed the base branch from chore/update-pori-imports to develop May 3, 2024 01:03
@elewis2 elewis2 changed the base branch from develop to chore/update-pori-imports May 3, 2024 01:32

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

@elewis2 elewis2 requested a review from kttkjl May 3, 2024 19:20
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{
"name": "@bcgsc-pori/graphkb-client",
"version": "4.2.5",
"lockfileVersion": 2,
"lockfileVersion": 3,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is moving toward lockfileVersion v3 (npm v9) intentional and the way to go from now on with pori repos?
Note: backward compatible with npm v8 and node v16.13.0, but node v16 is shipped with npm v8, which generate lockfileVersion v2. I guess I could keep node v16 (like the GH checks) but upgrate to npm v9 for that specific repo? So I won't be generating lockfileVersion v2 if I have to update the package-lock.json.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah I didn't notice this change being made. I'm developing with node 20/npm 10. Are you stuck using a lower node version for other repos?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@elewis2 , I don't know if I'm 'stuck', lol. GH checks for GKB API are node v16-18-20, but for GKB loader, schema & parser it's v12-14-16; so v16 was some sort of a common ground. I don't mind moving everything to v16+. In any case, should we be developping with the earliest or the latest version of the stack? Right now, if I'm using Node v16 with npm v8, it will generate lockfileVersion v2 everytime I'll update the dependencies. I can probably make npm v9 my default while still using node v16, but actual client checks are done with node v16 and npm v8: https://github.com/bcgsc/pori_graphkb_client/actions/runs/8942499994/job/24565218427#step:4:9

mathieulemieux
mathieulemieux previously approved these changes May 14, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

mathieulemieux
mathieulemieux previously approved these changes May 14, 2024
@elewis2
Copy link
Collaborator Author

elewis2 commented May 14, 2024

Schema changes described at https://github.com/bcgsc/pori_graphkb_schema/releases/tag/v4.0.0
Additional documentation in the readme https://github.com/bcgsc/pori_graphkb_schema

src/components/FormLayout/EdgeFields.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/components/FormLayout/index.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/__tests__/schema.test.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/__tests__/schema.test.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/api/index.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/schema.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/schema.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/schema.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/services/schema.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

@elewis2 elewis2 merged commit 119e94a into develop May 15, 2024
3 checks passed
Copy link

Unit Test Results

    1 files  ±0    39 suites  ±0   1m 37s ⏱️ -2s
160 tests ±0  159 ✔️  - 1  1 💤 +1  0 ❌ ±0 
156 runs  ±0  155 ✔️  - 1  1 💤 +1  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 119e94a. ± Comparison against base commit 9223d03.

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.

None yet

5 participants