-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Deprecations in 9.1.1 are breaking changes #1474
Comments
Hey, v9.1.0 added deprecation message without removing code but it wasn't actually possible to make it work with the shell script refactor. So instead, I went with an automatic removal of code in v9.1.1. While I sometimes prefer to manually update like you, I guess with this approach more hooks will be ready for v10. Sometimes people tend to leave deprecation messages for a long time without taking actions, so here at least it will be done and prevent frictions later. When updating husky, Thanks for feedback and sorry for the issue. |
This also broke for my project (causing release to fail since I don't understand what you mean by it should be fixed automatically. I guess after that all runs of To clarify, is the manual work around to delete the deprecated lines ourselves? |
This is required since husky 9.1.1. See typicode/husky#1474
This is required since husky 9.1.1. See typicode/husky#1474
Hey @typicode, the change in It looks like the regex that was written to clean this up is not quite flexible enough. Here is the pre-commit file from the failing repo. You can see here (https://regex101.com/r/bZYGon/1) that the regex does not match what we have in our hook. Here is another pre-commit example that is slightly different but also does not match the regex. This is going to break a lot of our repos' releases in the oclif and the Salesforce CLI orgs as they start rolling over to Can this be reverted and released in a v10 or could you release a new version with a slightly more flexible regex? |
I see. I wrote a test for it, I wonder why the test passes but not on your CI: If it causes too much problems, I may just revert for now and publish v10 later. @melink14 I mean that |
Yea, the regex (and test) would work if our files had the same "headers". Our files are slightly different so the regex does not match. In our files: In our files: I took a stab at updating the regex. It might not be perfect, but it matches a few variations that we have: https://regex101.com/r/WuObfs/1 |
It looks like the regex in my files are the same as iowillhoit's examples. I also thought it could be because of some deprecation lines I saw:
but it looks like the regex is the actual cause! |
I reverted it, so |
Wanted to inform that the deprecations made in version 9.1.1 are breaking changes.
Is not only deprecated but it's not working as well and is breaking the automated pipelines. Also, I don't like the idea of removing code with running husky and without using a --write tag. As a developer I do need to have full control on what's happening. I do appreciate the work done here, although this makes debugging a bit harder. :D
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: