My notes show I used yarn publish next in the past, which i thought did the following
prompt for version
update package.json w/ version
create a commit/tag w/ version
publish the commit to the registry
Unfortunately this command signature doesn't exist in the docs, and from the following I think the command thinks I am trying to publish a tarball file named "next"
> yarn publish next
yarn publish v1.22.19
`error Passed folder/tarball doesn’t exist,`
What yarn publish command should I use instead? OR, can this only be accomplished with multiple steps?
Related
I'm on yarn version 3.2.0 and trying to deploy a project on Heroku and it's telling me that I need the yarnrc.yml file but it is missing. I've tried running yarn, yarn install, yarn set version berry, and yarn set version stable but the file will not auto generate. I also created a brand new project and tried yarn init -2 but still no rc file.. Any suggestions?
had the same problem, I ended up creating the file by myself.
Take care, that the error message from Heroku is missleading and the file requires a prefixed dot: .yarnrc.yml
First line is for opting out of Plug&Play, second line points to the local yarn release (might depend on your version)
nodeLinker: node-modules
yarnPath: .yarn/releases/yarn-3.2.1.cjs
I have a yarn/lerna monorepo with multiple packages that depend on each other. If I add packageA as a dependency to packageB and execute yarn install I see that node_modules/packageA is actually a symlink to packages/packageA instead of the published version of that package.
This creates problems on CI if packageB is build before packageA - the build fails because node_modules/packageA just points to the bare sources, without the build products (because packageA has not yet been built).
How can I force yarn to always download the published version of packageA?
yarn --version: 1.22.10
sidenote: If I wanted to use a local version of packageA instead, I would use yarn link or a local path instead of a version in package.json. Why is yarn defaulting to this behaviour?
One options is: "focussed workspaces" - see the guide here.
In my case, I added a file packages/packageB/.yarnrc that specifies to always use the --focus argument for yarn install:
--install.focus true
This will make sure that packageB has a copy of the published packageA in it's own node_modules folder.
However: This only works for one package at a time.
You can just build packages in order of dependencies. So in your case it'd be something like this in your CI (assuming there is a script entry called "build" in package.json of the packages):
yarn workspace packageA run build
yarn workspace packageB run build
This way you control the order of builds,they complete successfully, and you don't have to force using published package.
I am using gradle through command line for the first time. I am running the latest version of Ubuntu. My professor's instructions indicate that upon typing "gradle init" I should be prompted to say what type of project it is as well as the language, etc. Mine simply skips all of that and says "build successful" afterwards, my professors' file ends up with the proper directory structure and mine only has the basic root folders. From the quick searches I've done, I see that there is a difference between interactive and non-interactive responses, but I can't find anything regarding how to make it interactive.
My issue was I installed gradle with sudo apt install gradle which installs a very old version. Instead you can install sdk and then run sdk install gradle
If it says something along the lines of:
> Task :init SKIPPED
The build file 'build.gradle' already exists. Skipping build initialization.
BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 5s
Then it means you already have a Gradle build structure present. In order to initialize a new one, the directory you run it in must be empty.
I had this problem, too. Seems to be a bug.
You can tell gradle non-interactively what type to create, for example:
gradle init --type java-library
Other build types
Could you please give me some advise on how to deal with this issue.
Build Pipeline
npm install
package.json
"dependencies": {
"cypress": "^3.4.1"
}
Release
Powershell command
npm ./node_modules/.bin/Cypress run
The cypress npm package is installed, but the Cypress binary is missing.
2019-10-07T18:04:59.5720120Z We expected the binary to be installed here:
There are some examples on how to cache ~/.npm but nothing seems to work so far. Examples on how to include cypress.io in your vsts are at the building stage and not after release.
According to the error log, it has provided a solution about this. You should run the cypress install command first and then the error will be fixed.
As my test, since I don't have a cypress.json file, so I need run the open command to
automatic generated get the json file and project sample.
Then the open command run as expected.
But because I run the open command in interactive mode and I don't have the cypress.json file in my artifacts, the taks finally failed.
So if you have cypress.json in your repo or artifacts, you just need to add
.\cypress install
in your powershell command.
And if not, you can add the related json file and folder to your repo or artifacts and then the run command will work as your expected.
I have been using npm for a personal project and just recently stumbled across yarn. Would there be any harm or "intended side effects" to switching to yarn's package manager in the same project where I had been using npm?
Although a few commenters here say its ok to mix both yarn and npm on the same project, after using yarn and npm and then yarn again, this is what yarn has to say about it:
warning package-lock.json found. Your project contains lock files generated by tools
other than Yarn. It is advised not to mix package managers in order to avoid resolution
inconsistencies caused by unsynchronized lock files. To clear this warning, remove
package-lock.json.
Since to me it is not any harm to using both them into one project.
I use npm and yarn (50/50) in dev environment.
But on ci/di i use only yarn because it is faster, and i reduce build minutes thanks yarn.
Also they both create different .lock file names.
Nobody told about the lock files.
Imagine you use yarn on dev environment, and yarn on your build/production servers. When you install a package using yarn, and your project works on your computer, you probably would want to keep it working on a production environment (your server).
That being sad, you would commit you yarn.lock file, that "saves" the exact versions of each package you have, when the project ran on your computer.
On your buid/production server you should call yarn install, but asking to keep all the same versions with --frozen-lockfile parameter. Some even say "yarn install --frozen-lockfile should be the default behavior", and I agree.
Then... another dev jump in the project you are working and install a package using npm (other than yarn). That new package will not be included in your yarn.lock file, but, a new package-json.lock file would be created, telling the exact packages versions it is using.
When that commit arrives on your build/production server, it will crash, fail, because that new package doesn't exist on yarn.lock file. Someone would need to pull that changes, call a yarn to install the dependences and update the lock file with the new package dependences, and push it again to the repo.
A quick point about using the lock file or not. If you call a 'yarn install' on your build/production server some weeks after the last install on your machine, the server would have many other new versions than your last "stable" version. It already happened to me many times.
I published recently the package-locks-checks, which help ensure you have not just one lock file but also locked each package version on your project.
There will be a point that one or both will no longer work and your project will be stuck at only using the existing lock file. Meaning, the issue probably will involve installation fails if you opt to reinstall without a lock file. And that also means failure to create a new lock file, so you are stuck with the existing one that you are trying to get rid off in the first place. We are actually encountering this issue in one of our projects. Because it is so big, no one tries to fix the issue and just rely on the existing lock file.
So, even if we say it's a rare case that it won't cause harm. Mixing npm and yarn should be avoided.
Here https://classic.yarnpkg.com/en/docs/migrating-from-npm/ we may find a confirmation that Yarn's resolution algorithm is compatible with NPM resolution algorithm.
Inside a npm project (with package.json) if you run yarn it will read your node_modules folder (using the resolution algorithm) and create a yarn.lock file with your project's locked dependency tree.
Based on that I assume that they are compatible inside the same project.
Update 30/04/2021
My original reply refers to yarn 1 (classic), although I've just created a React app with create-react-app tool and it creates the project's repository with package.json + yarn.lock by default. Again, another demonstration that it's fine (even with the warning mentioned by Dave Pile).
At the end of the day this is a matter of putting both together to work and checking yourself...
Plus you get a warning from yarn as Dave Pile said because we have to push *-lock.json files changes you have to consider using npm version >= 7 to make sure whenever you install packages by npm it will update your yarn-lock.json file too.
Because whenever you install the packages either by npm or yarn depends on what you have chosen for updating a dependency in the package.json (Using tilde ( ~ ) which gives you bug fix releases and caret ( ^ ) gives you backward-compatible new functionality) it will update you.lock file and since you have to push it might happen that you have different version of lock files.