-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
Remove composer.lock from version control #4464
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ | ||
| /composer.lock | ||
| /.phpunit.result.cache | ||
| build/ | ||
| logs/ | ||
|
|
||
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This way, if a dependency with an unintentional BC break gets released, whoever files their PR first after that will get their build failing although they won't have broken anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you having this concern for all dependencies or just for the "tools"? We could use fixed versions for dependencies that are tools, that would be more explicit anyway, right now it's hard to tell if we are up-to-date or not just by looking at the
composer.json. For actual dependencies such asdoctrine/cacheordoctrine/event-manager, the level of urgency is way higher if it breaks the DBAL, because those dependencies affect the end user unlike CS and SA libs, so I'd argue it's better for us to have a way of noticing that kind of issue early.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My concern is about the non-tools. I agree it's good to notice those issues earlier but not in a "pipeline broken" emergency way, especially given that some of them may be false-positive.
That would be a must to proceed with this change.
Another minor concern is that right now it's easy to switch between different branches and do
composer installfrom the cache, while without the lock file, it will requirecomposer updatewhich is much slower.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's no longer true with Composer 2 is it?
In the case of the DBAL, we have
doctrine/cache,doctrine/event-managerandsymfony/consoleas a dev dependency. Given the amount of activity on the 2 first libs, I think the issue you mention is not very likely to occur, at least not very often. Not sure how muchsymfony/consolecould disrupt the build.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It still is. Instead of using the resolved and locked dependencies, Composer still has to update its own internal database from Packagist and resolve the constraints. And only after that, it will install the dependencies from the cache.
This is true. But I don't get it, what problem is being solved by removing the lock file? If it's for the ancient PHP versions support, then
composer updatecan be used only for those versions (e.g. on CI). There's no point in removing the lock file entirely.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks more than acceptable to me.
composer.lock)Not so long ago you would have had to do this also for the CS build because
doctrine/coding-standard8 did not support PHP 7.1 anymore. With that policy, we should be able to use the latest version of each tool even if it drops a version of PHP we still want to support.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the organization decided that this the way to go, then there's no much point in having this discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok 👍
@nicwortel , can you please change your PR to take this into account:
This applies to all dev dependencies except
symfony/consoleThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was a bit occupied the last couple of days, so I haven't had the time to read this discussion until now.
I have to say that I simply decided to create this PR when I was working on #4463 and noticed that there was still a
composer.lockin this repository, and this repo wasn't marked as done yet in https://github.com/orgs/doctrine/projects/7#card-50248076. I thought it would be a nice "quick fix" while I was already working on CI and Composer related stuff in this repository anyway, and didn't expect it to be such a controversial change.To be honest, I have a little doubt whether I should proceed with this PR or perhaps I should close it until some more discussion is had within the core team. Although I personally prefer to gitignore the
composer.lockof my libraries (because I want to know if a newer dependency version breaks my library as soon as possible), I don't have experience with maintaining libraries as popular as the Doctrine ones and the concern raised by @morozov sounds valid.@morozov: perhaps it would help to have a scheduled (for example daily) build of the default branch? That way PR builds will still fail if a dependency is released with an unintended BC change, but (within the scheduled interval) the default branch would fail as well. That would at least make it clear that the build is not broken by a change in the PR but because of something else.
I do think that it is good to have a failing build if something breaks because of a broken dependency, because as @greg0ire already mentioned that would make it very visible that something is broken for the end user and some kind of action is required. Perhaps having a scheduled build will achieve this faster and without "blaming" the author of the next PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To clarify my opinion on this change: I see that it solves certain problems and creates certain new problems, it's not a silver bullet. The organization believes that the problems it solves are more important than the ones it creates.
While I don't share this opinion, I'm fine with @greg0ire making this call and owning it. As long as you two believe it's the right thing to do, please go ahead.