Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34.2k
upgrade npm to 3.7.1#5097
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
upgrade npm to 3.7.1 #5097
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
I'm getting some weirdness over here npm ERR! code MODULE_NOT_FOUND npm ERR! Cannot find module 'internal/util'Eeek! It seems like the tests on v5.x work as expected as do the tests at 76cb81b when it was last upgraded. |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
Looks like it was 1124de2 which landed about 4 hours ago and it is semver major ¯_(ツ)_/¯ PR for reference #4525 /cc @thefourtheye@jasnell@ChALkeR@bnoordhuis It looks like there was a search against the ecosystem, but perhaps not done against npm itself edit: I just have to note how crazy it is the a deprecation that was supposed to happen in 2010 finally lands an hour before a release that it breaks... I'm without words |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@thealphanerd, it should not fail, the API change probably had nothing to do with it. Most probably something is re-executing source code of the |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
@ChALkeR my thoughts exactly. Seemed very odd that this would break it. npm is effectively broken on master right now |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@thealphanerd1124de2 introduced |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@thealphanerd Why? I think we decided against supporting monkey-patching core modules in that way. Some module required by Could you give me a trace, please? |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
I was unaware of not supporting monkey-patching, but that is reasonable. That being said This version of npm has some pretty important performance improvements. Do you think it makes sense to temporarily revert the offending change until the next release of npm which can perhaps fix this? |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@thealphanerd See the issues and PRs I linked above in #5097 (comment) for history on this. |
thefourtheye commented Feb 5, 2016
Okay. Actual problem is one of the npm's dependencies are still using older version of Excerpt from Update: On further investigation, npm itself is using |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
edit: |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
/cc @isaacs |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@thealphanerd, it doesn't. |
thefourtheye commented Feb 5, 2016
Okay, updated the comment #5097 (comment) with some findings. |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@nodejs/ctc My opinion here is that we should in fact fix 1124de2 on the Node.js side for now, but add an explicit warning there, for at least one major version (v6.x), so that everyone who monkey-patches This does not cancel the fact that the problem should be fixed on I will make a PR for that when I'll get home. |
Fishrock123 commented Feb 5, 2016
Can we just remove lower versions of This was fixed ages ago in |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
@Fishrock123 That has to be done, of course, I'm not suggesting leaving an old version of |
iarna commented Feb 5, 2016
As soon as the updated @Fishrock123 We can't just remove the deeper one's from the dep tree, w/o patching |
ChALkeR commented Feb 5, 2016
Proposed solution:
|
Fishrock123 commented Feb 5, 2016
@ChALkeR seems like an ok plan |
MylesBorins commented Feb 5, 2016
I made a branch that reverts 1124de2 and applies b5362b5 I then used that build of node to run citgm. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/thealphanerd-smoker/59/ edit: all failures are unrelated |
This is needed to give users a grace period before actually breaking modules that re-evaluate fs sources from context where internal modules are not allowed, e.g. older version of graceful-fs module. To be reverted in Node.js 7.0. Fixesnodejs#5097, see also nodejs#1898, nodejs#2026, and nodejs#4525.
MylesBorins commented Feb 13, 2016
closing in for #5211 |
This is needed to give users a grace period before actually breaking modules that re-evaluate fs sources from context where internal modules are not allowed, e.g. older version of graceful-fs module. To be reverted in Node.js 7.0 Fixes: #5097, see also #1898, #2026, and #4525. PR-URL: #5102 Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
This is needed to give users a grace period before actually breaking modules that re-evaluate fs sources from context where internal modules are not allowed, e.g. older version of graceful-fs module. To be reverted in Node.js 7.0 Fixes: nodejs#5097, see also nodejs#1898, nodejs#2026, and nodejs#4525. PR-URL: nodejs#5102 Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
This contains these releases:
https://github.com/npm/npm/releases/tag/v3.7.0
https://github.com/npm/npm/releases/tag/v3.7.1
Notable changes are:
r: @Fishrock123
r: @zkat