Skip to content
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

Upgrades jasmine, karma-webpack, webdriver-manager, covergae, pygithub & webpack to their latest version #6770

Merged
merged 22 commits into from
Jun 20, 2019

Conversation

NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor

@NishealJ NishealJ commented May 21, 2019

Explanation

This PR upgrades jasmine, karma-webpack, webdriver-manager & webpack to their latest version.
Visit here to see the upgrade status of all the oppia third-party libraries.

visit here for testing doc

Checklist

  • The PR title starts with "Fix #bugnum: ", followed by a short, clear summary of the changes. (If this PR fixes part of an issue, prefix the title with "Fix part of #bugnum: ...".)
  • The PR explanation includes the words "Fixes #bugnum: ..." (or "Fixes part of #bugnum" if the PR only partially fixes an issue).
  • The linter/Karma presubmit checks have passed.
    • These should run automatically, but if not, you can manually trigger them locally using python scripts/pre_commit_linter.py and bash scripts/run_frontend_tests.sh.
  • The PR is made from a branch that's not called "develop".
  • The PR has an appropriate "CHANGELOG: ..." label (If you are unsure of which label to add, ask the reviewers for guidance).
  • The PR follows the style guide.
  • The PR addresses the points mentioned in the codeowner checks for the files/folders changed. (See the codeowner's wiki page.)
  • The PR is assigned to an appropriate reviewer.
    • If you're a new contributor, please ask on Gitter for someone to assign a reviewer.
    • If you're not sure who the appropriate reviewer is, please assign to the issue's "owner" -- see the "talk-to" label on the issue.

@NishealJ NishealJ requested review from seanlip and apb7 May 21, 2019 14:48
@NishealJ NishealJ requested a review from vojtechjelinek as a code owner May 21, 2019 14:48
Copy link
Contributor

@apb7 apb7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @NishealJ, thanks for the PR. Can you please list the testing methodology for this (and other upgrade PRs)?

"eslint-scope": "^4.0.0",
"eslint-visitor-keys": "^1.0.0"
},
"dependencies": {
"eslint-scope": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @NishealJ, I have a couple of questions here:

  1. There seem to be deletions in this file. Is this the case or have some dependencies been moved? If the latter, please revert them to their original positions.
  2. There are multiple versions of eslint-scope listed in this file as dependencies (4.0.3 and 3.7.1). Why? Are there any other such dependencies? Can you please check this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @apb7,
yes, I'll provide the testing docs for this.
package-lock.json was auto-generated after the upgrade, I believe there are deletions in package-lock.json because, after the upgrade, libraries might have changed their requirements.
Also,
eslint-scope is mentioned twice because package-lock contains all the libraries and their requirements, if 2 or more libraries require eslint-scope it will be mentioned more than 2 time.

I'll completely test this and provide a testing doc thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, I'll provide the testing docs for this.

Hmm. I was looking for the manual tests you must have carried out locally when upgrading this.

package-lock.json was auto-generated after the upgrade, I believe there are deletions in package-lock.json because, after the upgrade, libraries might have changed their requirements.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

eslint-scope is mentioned twice because package-lock contains all the libraries and their requirements, if 2 or more libraries require eslint-scope it will be mentioned more than 2 time.

I agree -- if there are two or more libraries that require eslint-scope, it will be mentioned more than two times. I was more concerned regarding two different versions of eslint-scope...

I'll completely test this and provide a testing doc thanks!

Okay, if this PR is untested, can you please do the following:

  1. Label this as a WIP and add to the PR explanation whatever is left to do.
  2. Assign the PR to yourself until it remains a WIP. As soon as you are done with the PR, please re-assign it to me so that I can review it.

Thanks!

@apb7
Copy link
Contributor

apb7 commented May 21, 2019

Oh, and also, is this PR dependent on or related to PR #6769? I can see some overlapping changes in package-lock.json. Thanks!

@oppiabot
Copy link

oppiabot bot commented May 21, 2019

Hi @NishealJ. Due to recent changes in the "develop" branch, this PR now has a merge conflict. Please follow this link if you need help resolving the conflict, so that the PR can be merged. Thanks!

@oppiabot
Copy link

oppiabot bot commented Jun 3, 2019

Hi @NishealJ, I'm going to mark this PR as stale because it hasn't had any updates for 10 days. If no further activity occurs within 7 days, it will be automatically closed so that others can take up the issue.
If you are still working on this PR, please make a follow-up commit within 7 days (and submit it for review, if applicable). Please also let us know if you are stuck so we can help you!

@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @NishealJ any progress on this?

Hi @lilithxxx, i'm working on the testing doc.

@apb7
Copy link
Contributor

apb7 commented Jun 15, 2019

@NishealJ, since you're upgrading multiple libraries here, please change the PR title accordingly. Thanks!

@NishealJ NishealJ changed the title Upgrades jasmine, karma-webpack, webdriver-manager & webpack to their latest version Upgrades jasmine, karma-webpack, webdriver-manager, covergae, pygithub & webpack to their latest version Jun 16, 2019
@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NishealJ, since you're upgrading multiple libraries here, please change the PR title accordingly. Thanks!

Done @apb7

@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NishealJ commented Jun 17, 2019

Hi @apb7,
This PR has upgrades libs with minor version changes I've analyzed through changelogs for testing whereas few libs have only bug fix in their changelog.
here is the testing doc, please let me know if you need tests for an intended behavior Thanks :)

@seanlip
Copy link
Member

seanlip commented Jun 17, 2019

Hi @NishealJ, two things -- please make the doc commentable by anyone, and please also make sure the doc contains links to the changelogs for the relevant libraries and calls out + analyzes any breaking changes. Thanks!

@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @NishealJ, two things -- please make the doc commentable by anyone, and please also make sure the doc contains links to the changelogs for the relevant libraries and calls out + analyzes any breaking changes. Thanks!

Sure @seanlip Thanks i've updated

Copy link
Contributor

@apb7 apb7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks @NishealJ. Please check out a fresh copy of package-lock.json (if it isn't already).

@apb7
Copy link
Contributor

apb7 commented Jun 18, 2019

Hi @seanlip and @vojtechjelinek, ptal as code owners. Thanks!

@apb7 apb7 assigned vojtechjelinek and seanlip and unassigned NishealJ Jun 18, 2019
@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NishealJ commented Jun 18, 2019

LGTM, thanks @NishealJ. Please check out a fresh copy of package-lock.json (if it isn't already).

Hi @apb7, I've checked it, its fresh no changes with start.sh and it has no fsevents Thanks!

Edit: Updated package-lock.json

Copy link
Contributor

@vojtechjelinek vojtechjelinek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The package-lock.json shouldn't be empty, otherwise LGTM!

@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NishealJ commented Jun 18, 2019

The package-lock.json shouldn't be empty, otherwise LGTM!

Hi @vojtechjelinek Done Thanks!

@NishealJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @vojtechjelinek & @seanlip PTAL Thanks!

@seanlip seanlip removed their assignment Jun 19, 2019
@NishealJ NishealJ requested a review from vojtechjelinek June 20, 2019 06:11
@apb7 apb7 removed the request for review from vojtechjelinek June 20, 2019 10:56
@apb7
Copy link
Contributor

apb7 commented Jun 20, 2019

Hi @vojtechjelinek, ptal. Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@vojtechjelinek vojtechjelinek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@vojtechjelinek vojtechjelinek merged commit b01bd3b into oppia:develop Jun 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants