Skip to content

Conversation

@marcalexiei
Copy link
Contributor

@marcalexiei marcalexiei commented Dec 3, 2025

@manypkg/get-packages@1 depends on read-yml-files@1, which uses js-yaml@3.

Upgrading to @manypkg/get-packages@2.2.2 removes this and other dependencies.

Why not @manypkg/get-packages@3?

Version 3 is ESM-only.
This repository still relies on Jest 29, which does not support ESM by default, so upgrading to v3 isn’t feasible yet.


I’m aware that a few changes may conflict with the next branch,
but I believe it’s worthwhile to merge this into main to reduce unnecessary dependencies.

If you're happy with this PR, I can also prepare a follow-up to bring the same changes into next.
Since next branch uses vitest, we could consider upgrading @manypkg/get-packages to v3 there.

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 3, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 0d3f4db

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 11 packages
Name Type
@changesets/assemble-release-plan Minor
@changesets/get-dependents-graph Minor
@changesets/should-skip-package Minor
@changesets/apply-release-plan Minor
@changesets/get-release-plan Minor
@changesets/release-utils Minor
@changesets/config Minor
@changesets/cli Minor
@changesets/git Minor
@changesets/pre Minor
@changesets/read Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 3, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.34%. Comparing base (3cb9982) to head (0d3f4db).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
packages/cli/src/commands/publish/index.ts 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1795   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.33%   81.34%           
=======================================
  Files          54       54           
  Lines        2277     2278    +1     
  Branches      684      679    -5     
=======================================
+ Hits         1852     1853    +1     
  Misses        420      420           
  Partials        5        5           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@marcalexiei marcalexiei mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2025
resolved "https://registry.yarnpkg.com/react-is/-/react-is-18.2.0.tgz#199431eeaaa2e09f86427efbb4f1473edb47609b"
integrity sha512-xWGDIW6x921xtzPkhiULtthJHoJvBbF3q26fzloPCK0hsvxtPVelvftw3zjbHWSkR2km9Z+4uxbDDK/6Zw9B8w==

read-yaml-file@^1.1.0:
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bluwy I'm moving the conversation here since #1772 is closed

I think we cant upgrade it in this major due to its breaking change.

From @manypkg/get-packages@2.0.0 changelog

There is a change in getPackages structure:

The get-packages package now returns a slightly different structure. The old tool string has been replaced with a tool object, using the new Tool interface provided by @manypkg/tools. Each Package now contains both the absolute directory and relative directory path. Last, the root package has been renamed rootPackage and is optional, to support monorepos that do not contain a root package.

I assumed that when working with a changeset there is always a root package, so I added a non-null assertion to avoid the type-checking error.

For the tool updates, I added access to the type property and used a simple { type: 'tool' } object in the mock functions, along with a type cast.

@marcalexiei
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bluwy could you take a look at this PR?
The missing coverage line is not currently covered by tests and was not updated as part of this change.

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.

1 participant