-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
chore: add check engines script to CI #2922
Conversation
ef6f792
to
9a4f689
Compare
9a4f689
to
f4c5eaf
Compare
ddb6020
to
7cba0db
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding this check seems like a good idea! (Given how it impacted users last time dependencies were bumped outside of the "advertised" supported versions of Node.)
I haven't read through all the code or anything, but I would approve of doing this, generally speaking!
I tried moving it to its own workflow file on my fork, seems to work just fine: DeeDeeG@7564e32
Feel free to copy that if wanting it in its own separate GitHub Actions workflow file (separate .yml
CI file).
7cba0db
to
ed3a910
Compare
@DeeDeeG The comment I left in the code was too vague, sorry about that. I meant I would like to move the whole thing to its own GitHub action to be used like I use this same action other places and I'd love to find a good org for to be used ecosystem-wide. I talked a bit to some folks at the |
EDIT: Okay, yep, fixed just now via #2929. Disregard this comment. |
I was having some trouble getting the tests passing in CI so I decided to separate out all the commits into separate PRs. It did end up showing that the |
This will test against regressions in (sub-)dependency engine changes and guard against breaking changes like #2848 #2873.
Errors will look like this: