Closed pkerschbaum closed 1 year ago
Thanks heaps @pkerschbaum! I personally use yarn
today for all my packages, so switching over to npm
for this one only would be increased friction for me. Not sure which way to go with this PR.
Regardless of which way we go, it would be great to get this change in:
I removed the build:flow script because that was broken anyways. It tried to copy a file src/tiny-invariant.js.flow to the dist folder, but the name of the flow file is src/tiny-invariant.flow.js (the .flow and .js suffix are switched).
OK I see, then let's keep it as it is.
I will remove the build:flow
script in another PR sometime.
Proposed Change
Switch from yarn classic to npm.
Reasons
tiny-invariant
with the goal to verify that the library can be consumed in different JS/TS projects. This will involve publishing the package to Verdaccio, and just using npm makes this stuff a little bit easier :)Risks
IMHO none.
npm
re-uses the information fromyarn.lock
when buildingpackage-lock.json
, so when working as a maintainer ontiny-invariant
, dependencies should still be exactly the same as before. I looked into a couple of dependencies to verify that.And for package consumers the lock files don't play any role anyways.
Oh, and one more thing
I removed the
build:flow
script because that was broken anyways. It tried to copy a filesrc/tiny-invariant.js.flow
to thedist
folder, but the name of the flow file issrc/tiny-invariant.flow.js
(the .flow and .js suffix are switched).