search

Olical / depot

Find newer versions of your dependencies in your deps.edn file
https://clojars.org/olical/depot
The Unlicense
256 stars 14 forks source link

Update ClojureScript dependencies #8

Closed manuel-uberti closed 5 years ago

manuel-uberti commented 5 years ago

Hi,

first of all thanks for depot, an amazingly simple and efficient tool to keep my projects up-to-date. :+1:

I was wondering if there was a way to check shadow-cljs.edn for outdated dependencies as well. Using shadow-cljs, I every CLJS-related dependency in that file, and it would be useful to keep those dependencies updated as well.

Olical commented 5 years ago

There's no way right now other than copying the deps section of your shadow-cljs.edn to and from a deps.edn file. I've never used shadow-cljs so I'm kinda inferring this from skimming some example configuration :sweat_smile:

If it has the exact same structure as deps.edn but is just nested inside shadow-cljs.edn I suppose there could be a flag that made depot check there as well / instead? If it is the same as deps.edn though, why is it in shadow-cljs.edn in the first place, wouldn't it make more sense to let one each tool deal with it's own file?

If they're different formats I'd be reluctant to add this features since it's smells "feature creep"-ish to me. What if shadow-cljs falls out of favour and another-shadow-cljs takes the community by storm for example. I'd rather just support deps.edn if that's common ground for 90% of the projects being created these days. Open to a discussion though!

manuel-uberti commented 5 years ago

From what I see, deps.edn stores dependencies as a map, while shadow-cljs uses the vector-of-vectors syntax.

Honestly, I've been using shadow-cljs since a couple of days so I am not the most expert here. :smile:

Maybe useful to ping @thheller about this.

manuel-uberti commented 5 years ago

Actually, you know what? It does make sense to have a different tool taking care of shadow-cljs. No sense in over engineering yours.

Thanks again.

Olical commented 5 years ago

Yeah, I was probably going to argue that it was out of scope. Thanks for bringing it up though, it's an interesting idea and worth thinking about.