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

fix(lockfilemaintenance): ensure isLockFileMaintenance on grouping #33971

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

viceice
Copy link
Member

@viceice viceice commented Jan 31, 2025

Changes

ensure isLockFileMaintenance is true if grouping lockefile maintenance with other updates even it's not really supported.

Context

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

  • I have updated the documentation, or
  • No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

  • Code inspection only, or
  • Newly added/modified unit tests, or
  • No unit tests but ran on a real repository, or
  • Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

const isLockFileMaintenance = config.updateType === 'lockFileMaintenance';
const { isLockFileMaintenance } = config;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When I see old code which references config.updateType, it implies to me that config just be an "update" config and not a "branch" config.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no. it's the branch config, so it simply assumes the proper update type was copied to branch config

if (config.upgrades.some((upgrade) => upgrade.updateType === 'major')) {
config.updateType = 'major';
}

// explicit set `isLockFileMaintenance` for the branch for groups
if (config.upgrades.some((upgrade) => upgrade.isLockFileMaintenance)) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here, config = branch config. So you're setting branchConfig.isLockFileMaintenance=true if any update in the branch has isLockFileMaintenance set. This seems logically correct. But I think updateArtifacts() is no called on a full branch, so the refactorings within manager code seem unrelated or mismatched with this change?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, it's passing the full branch config. patchConfigForArtifactsUpdate is only patching the lockFiles property and config is of BranchConfig type.

const results = await managerUpdateArtifacts(manager, {
packageFileName: packageFile.path,
updatedDeps,
// TODO #22198
newPackageFileContent: packageFile.contents!.toString(),
config: patchConfigForArtifactsUpdate(
config,
manager,
packageFile.path,
),
});

const results = await managerUpdateArtifacts(manager, {
packageFileName: packageFile.path,
updatedDeps,
// TODO #22198
newPackageFileContent: packageFile.contents!.toString(),
config: patchConfigForArtifactsUpdate(
config,
manager,
packageFile.path,
),
});

packageFileName: packageFile.path,
updatedDeps: [],
newPackageFileContent: contents!,
config: patchConfigForArtifactsUpdate(
config,
manager,
packageFile.path,
),
});

@viceice viceice requested a review from rarkins February 5, 2025 10:15
Copy link
Collaborator

@secustor secustor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would test this at least once on a real repo.

@viceice
Copy link
Member Author

viceice commented Feb 5, 2025

I would test this at least once on a real repo.

ok, it only occurs when grouping lock file maintenance with other updates, so will search the discussions for a repro repo

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.

3 participants