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

Add caveat about pnpm v9 lockfile incompatibility #1494

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ryanlink
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

Updating docs to disclaim pnpm v9 incompatibility.

Acceptance criteria

Docs updated

Testing plan

n/a

Risks

n/a

Metrics

n/a

References

https://fossa.atlassian.net/browse/ANE-2177

Checklist

  • I added tests for this PR's change (or explained in the PR description why tests don't make sense).
  • If this PR introduced a user-visible change, I added documentation into docs/.
  • If this PR added docs, I added links as appropriate to the user manual's ToC in docs/README.ms and gave consideration to how discoverable or not my documentation is.
  • If this change is externally visible, I updated Changelog.md. If this PR did not mark a release, I added my changes into an ## Unreleased section at the top.
  • If I made changes to .fossa.yml or fossa-deps.{json.yml}, I updated docs/references/files/*.schema.json AND I have updated example files used by fossa init command. You may also need to update these if you have added/removed new dependency type (e.g. pip) or analysis target type (e.g. poetry).
  • If I made changes to a subcommand's options, I updated docs/references/subcommands/<subcommand>.md.

@ryanlink ryanlink requested a review from a team as a code owner January 13, 2025 20:37
@ryanlink ryanlink requested a review from spatten January 13, 2025 20:37

<img width="796" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d1461506-d3e7-42da-b9be-2b53a87f79f1" />

We have [requested](https://github.com/pnpm/spec/issues/6#issuecomment-2588100182) more details on the pnpm v9 lockfile spec and hope to be able to prioritize this improvement soon.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is unnecessary. I would prefer customers actually ask us to do this in order to help prioritize it rather than letting them think "Well, it says it's coming soon - I'll say nothing." which stifles that signal.

My comments about the spec weren't meant to say that we need more details. It was only to point out why the spec may be a bit sparse: the format of pnpm-lock.yaml likely isn't meant for consumption by anything but pnmp. In general, we want the CLI to focus on supporting what's out in the wild rather than just the spec anyhow.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense, I can remove that. I'll explicitly call out that they should email us if this is affecting them :)

I thought the spec was actually more sparse than the previous spec (v6), that's why I put it that way. I could be wrong!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure how to read their specs. Like maybe they each only describe differences between the spec and the previous spec? In any case, the dev deps thing is what I really want to prioritize fixing - if we can explain the additional with catalog as a version then it's unfortunate but still usable. Obviously I'd like to fix both things though.

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.

2 participants