Closed miiila closed 4 years ago
👋 Please could you give a little more context:
@lili2311
Why does removed empty dependencies object helping towards moving to a graph?
As I say in description, DepTree intreface has diverged from the one used in e.g. DepGraph.
The main difference is in mandatory vs optional dependencies
property. Once moved to graph function
, tree created out of the graph should be the same as the one created by tree function
. Therefore the interface has to be same and that's why we need to align those.
How does Registry and other upstreams handle this change? Do they care?
That's what we spoke about with @darscan. What needs to be put back is top level dependencies
key which might be somewhere used to checks. Apart from that, everything should be ok.
What needs to be put back is top level dependencies key which might be somewhere used to checks
Can we do that then please :D
I still think you need to split the type in two, like we do in the dep-graph lib: top-level tree type (with mandatory dependencies
property) VS recursive dep type (with optional dependencies
property)
Or, just use the dep-graph type in
:tada: This PR is included in version 1.16.1 :tada:
The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket:
What this does
DepTree intreface has diverged from the one used in e.g. DepGraph. The biggest difference is the dependencies keys, which is not mandatory anymore. This change is a prereq for using depgraphs.
Notes for the reviewer
Just carefully review tests and think of potential impact and omitted parts.
More information