actions / setup-node

Set up your GitHub Actions workflow with a specific version of node.js
MIT License
3.94k stars 1.3k forks source link

If `cache: yarn` is specified, this action fails #1027

Open esperecyan opened 6 months ago

esperecyan commented 6 months ago

Description: If I set packageManager property in package.json and set cache: yarn in this action, this action will fail.

Related:

Action version: v4 (v4.0.2)

Platform:

Runner type:

Tools version:

Repro steps:
This is the workflow that reproduced this issue with the minimum configuration. https://github.com/esperecyan/actions-setup-node-debug/actions/runs/8907795048/workflow You can confirm that the issue does not occur in the following cases:

Expected behavior: actions/setup-node succeeds.

Actual behavior: actions/setup-node fails with the following error.

Error: error This project's package.json defines "packageManager": "yarn@4.1.1". However the current global version of Yarn is 1.22.22.

Presence of the "packageManager" field indicates that the project is meant to be used with Corepack, a tool included by default with all official Node.js distributions starting from 16.9 and 14.19. Corepack must currently be enabled by running corepack enable in your terminal. For more information, check out https://yarnpkg.com/corepack. https://github.com/esperecyan/actions-setup-node-debug/actions/runs/8907795048/job/24462266566

Running corepack enable before actions/setup-node will avoid this issue. https://github.com/esperecyan/actions-setup-node-debug/actions/runs/8907795048/job/24462266822

HarithaVattikuti commented 6 months ago

Hello @esperecyan Thank you for creating this issue. We will investigate it and get back to you as soon as we have some feedback.

1kevgriff commented 6 months ago

Hitting this today too.

n0099 commented 5 months ago

901

546

480

SunsetTechuila commented 5 months ago

Running corepack enable before actions/setup-node will avoid this issue.

works only for node 18+

for node 14-16 see https://github.com/actions/setup-node/issues/1075#issuecomment-2165643488