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

Respect per-package package.json publishConfig.access #204

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 29, 2019

Conversation

Andarist
Copy link
Member

fixes #193
closes #203
is combination of #203 and Andarist@82c83ba

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Oct 25, 2019

🦋 Changeset is good to go

Latest commit: acc01ca

We got this.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 25, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #204 into master will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #204      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    76.4%   76.34%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          41       41              
  Lines        1051     1057       +6     
  Branches      223      232       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          803      807       +4     
- Misses        244      246       +2     
  Partials        4        4
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/get-workspaces/src/index.ts 96.42% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
...ckages/cli/src/commands/publish/publishPackages.ts 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
packages/config/src/index.ts 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update da11ab8...acc01ca. Read the comment docs.

@@ -57,15 +57,15 @@ export let parse = (

if (
json.access !== undefined &&
json.access !== "private" &&
json.access !== "restricted" &&
json.access !== "public"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should still allow access === "private" so that the old default config isn't broken but let's normalize it to restricted and log a warning.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok, I've added handling of this

@Noviny
Copy link
Collaborator

Noviny commented Oct 28, 2019

I think this is good to merge. I'm tempted to merge it despite failing coverage goals, but would be great not to degrade coverage. lmk what you want to do.

@Andarist
Copy link
Member Author

I'm afraid I won't be able to work on increasing the coverage in the following days.

Copy link
Member

@emmatown emmatown left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just pushed a test for the config stuff. The other coverage decrease is in the publish which we don't really have any tests for yet so that shouldn't really affect this PR

@emmatown emmatown merged commit a679b1d into changesets:master Oct 29, 2019
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 29, 2019
dword-design pushed a commit to dword-design/changesets that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2020
* Respect per-package package.json publishConfig.access

* Normalize private access to restricted

* Add a config test

* Linting
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.

When setting access - respect package-specific config
3 participants