Fix #831 - Pinned npm version with corepack#832
Conversation
npm version with corepack
01572fc to
de6e56c
Compare
|
Hello, @faisalman 👋🏻 There seems to be an oversight in the Lines 2 to 4 in 4121c59 ua-parser-js/package-lock.json Lines 2 to 3 in 4121c59 In this PR, I ran |
9030fdf to
bacf655
Compare
|
Interesting... Copilot says that:
|
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
| "allowScripts": { | ||
| "fsevents@2.1.3": true, | ||
| "fsevents@2.3.2": true | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The allowScripts is a new feature of the NPM 11.16.0 release:
- https://www.gitclear.com/open_repos/npm/cli/release/v11.16.0
- feat: Phase 1 of
allowScriptsopt-in install-script policy npm/cli#9360
Install behaviour is unchanged. Scripts still run as they always have. The only Phase 1 user-visible change is one advisory block at the end of
npm installlisting packages whose install scripts haven't been reviewed via the newallowScriptsfield inpackage.json. A future release will turn that advisory into an actual block.
74406b3 to
fd46c7a
Compare
…ification errors
Both workflows now pin Node 22.22.3 — which bundles corepack 0.34.6 carrying both the legacy jl3b… and rotated DhQ8… npm registry keys — and the npm install --global corepack@... workaround steps are no longer needed
0aa1c08 to
c3804b8
Compare
# Conflicts: # .github/workflows/ci-build-test.yml
Prerequisites
Type of Change
Chore, fixes #831
Description
Please include a summary of the change (current behavior vs new behavior), which issue is fixed (you can also link to an open issue here), and why this change is necessary.
I pinned the
packageManagerversion with thecorepack use npm. Now all the contributions would adhere to the samenpmversion, avoiding potentialpackage-lock.jsonconflicts.Additionally, I adapted GH Actions to use the
corepack-installednpmversion instead of the one provided by thesetup-nodeaction. Unfortunately, there's still a "bug" in the GH runner that requires running thesetup-nodetwice: actions/setup-node#531 (comment). But I referenced it in the comment for maintainersImpact
It may require the contributors to accept the
corepackinstall prompt once they run thenpmi. But nothing "breaking" per se.