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

Suggestion: In composer outdated, mark the packages coming from my own composer.json #10447

Closed
ThomasLandauer opened this issue Jan 9, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #10779
Closed
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@ThomasLandauer
Copy link
Contributor

When looking at the output of composer outdated, I'm always having the same question:

  • Is the package listed in my own composer.json (which means I can update it myself right away)?
  • Or is it required by some other package (which means I can't do anything about it immediately)?

So to make this more obvious, I'm suggesting to somehow "mark" the packages which are coming directly from composer.json (maybe with an asterisk, or however...)

@Seldaek
Copy link
Member

Seldaek commented Jan 12, 2022

Is the package listed in my own composer.json

You can filter that with --direct, but maybe we could highlight them somehow.

@Seldaek Seldaek added this to the 2.3 milestone Jan 12, 2022
@Seldaek
Copy link
Member

Seldaek commented Jan 12, 2022

Note that it being a direct dependency does not however really mean that it's fully under your control, there might be a dependency on it from one of your dependencies which prevents an update.

@Seldaek
Copy link
Member

Seldaek commented Jan 12, 2022

One idea worth investigating would be to split the list in two sections, things only required by composer.json and then the rest. It might be more readable than a *.

@ThomasLandauer
Copy link
Contributor Author

there might be a dependency on it from one of your dependencies which prevents an update.

Yes, but that other dependency might be in my composer.json too. Example: Bumping one Symfony package from 5.4 to 6.0 doesn't work, but bumping them all does. So listing them as "not upgradeable" gives the false impression that I can't do anything about it.
So I still suggest to mark them as "upgradeable", with the rationale: "It's worth trying. If it doesn't work out, the error message will guide you anyway."

Two lists: Yeah sure, the * was just a quick idea! Some more: using a different color; using some indentation...
Actually: You know what would be even better? Replacing the last column (=description) with the source:

  • Either composer.json if it's a direct requirement
  • Or the imploded list of package names that require it

So integrating the basics of composer why into composer outdated. As I already said in some other issue, most descriptions are quite useless, and this is especially true when I just want to see which packages are outdated.

@Seldaek Seldaek modified the milestones: 2.3, 2.4 Feb 18, 2022
@stof
Copy link
Contributor

stof commented Apr 8, 2022

The split in 2 lists would not be upgradable vs not upgradable, as computing that would actually require trying to do the update

@Seldaek
Copy link
Member

Seldaek commented May 13, 2022

See #10779

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants