-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 149
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
chore: test using node 16, remove node 10 #862
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #862 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.85% 95.85%
=======================================
Files 31 31
Lines 940 940
=======================================
Hits 901 901
Misses 39 39 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Change LGTM but we need to understand why it fails on v16 and fix that |
/cc @MylesBorins could it be a breaking change from npm v7 ? |
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.
LGTM
@targos I'll take a look to see how this broke. We had been testing npm 7 and CITGM when it first landed on master, but it is possible that something regressed. |
@targos I'm getting an even earlier failure with v16.1.0 😅
|
@MylesBorins that error looks similar to tapjs/tapjs#624 (comment) / tapjs/tapjs#746 |
hmmm maybe we need to update tap in CITGM? |
I have a reproduction for the npm team and we've found where this regressed. Hopefully a fix won't be terribly difficult |
This was only working by coincidence pre-7.8.0. Based on how it was "working" before, we may want to think about running commands from a |
Given the results in #866, npm is fixed so I'm landing this PR. |
10 is EOL, and 16 is new and shiny? 😀
Possibly blocked by #852?
Checklist
npm test
passeshere