fix(release): propagate release for dependent packages

[brugi82]

Propagate release for all dependant packages that need updating when projectRelationship is "independent" .

Current Behavior

Right now when monorepo has projectRelationship: "independent", nx release is tagging and releasing only projects with changes and not projects that depend on those. For example, lets say that we have 2 projects in our monorepo: is-even and is-odd (which depends on is-even). If we make changes to is-even, nx release will only tag and release that project and not is-odd too, even though it's package.json is updated to reflect the dependency on the latest version of is-even.
nx release config that we are using in the example:

  "release": {
    "version": {
      "conventionalCommits": true
    },
    "changelog": {
      "projectChangelogs": true
    },
    "projectsRelationship": "independent",
    "releaseTagPattern": "{projectName}-{version}"
  },

Expected Behavior

nx release will tag and release projects that depend on projects with changes too. In the example above, both packages will be released.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #22268

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nx-dev	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Mar 25, 2024 3:54pm

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit 0040d75. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution

---

🟥 Failed Commands
nx affected --target=e2e --base=9520aa22d4cdf12f324e7ea4f9c8a98081a2a0ff --head=0040d756d2153983fd873f0e5c4fc6e4ad741efd --parallel=1

✅ Successfully ran 5 targets

• nx affected --targets=lint,test,build --base=9520aa22d4cdf12f324e7ea4f9c8a98081a2a0ff --head=0040d756d2153983fd873f0e5c4fc6e4ad741efd --parallel=3
• nx run-many -t check-imports check-commit check-lock-files check-codeowners documentation --parallel=1 --no-dte
• nx-cloud record -- nx format:check --base=9520aa22d4cdf12f324e7ea4f9c8a98081a2a0ff --head=0040d756d2153983fd873f0e5c4fc6e4ad741efd
• nx documentation --no-dte
• nx affected -t e2e-macos --parallel=1 --base=9520aa22d4cdf12f324e7ea4f9c8a98081a2a0ff --head=0040d756d2153983fd873f0e5c4fc6e4ad741efd

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[JamesHenry]

Hi @brugi82, thanks a lot for this!

The PR that allows for this behaviour to be controlled is here: #21313

I'm afraid it didn't make it over the line at the time and needs to be rekindled.

I don't think we should merge this PR as is as some folks might prefer/be depending on the current behaviour for certain workflows.

While you wait for #21313 hopefully you can simply apply this change you made as a temporary patch via patch-package or pnpm

[brianespinosa]

While you wait for #21313 hopefully you can simply apply this change you made as a temporary patch via patch-package or pnpm

Hi @JamesHenry!

What is the related ticket and discussion for the above referenced PR #21313? I was hoping to read some discussion about why it didn't make it across the finish line at the time so I could add a vote for that feature to come in if it would help getting it re-prioritized.

This particular PR would resolve #22268 which has already garnered some interest from folks in the short time since it was created. This is actually critical functionality for NX users who are library authors who intend to publish libraries... so anything we can do to get some solution in, I am all for. I am even willing to put some resources from my org behind helping to get it in if it is a matter of bandwidth. Does the other draft PR need to get dusted off so it is ready to come in? Give us some direction here on where we should send resources.

[JamesHenry]

@brianespinosa Yes it is purely down to resource constraints, I am on vacation until April 15th and I can look at with fresh eyes then.

If you are feeling inspired and want to take the commits there and apply it to your fork and bring it up to date with the latest and add relevant e2e coverage and ensure any existing tests/quality checks pass then that for sure would be highly appreciated and we can work together to get it released.

[JamesHenry]

The PR is now ready for review here: #22836

Please take a look for a preview of how you will opt into the behaviorr and what changelogs will look like

I am closing this one to avoid confusion, many thanks again

[github-actions]

This pull request has already been merged/closed. If you experience issues related to these changes, please open a new issue referencing this pull request.