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

Property no unknown #4184

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Aug 11, 2019
Merged

Conversation

vankop
Copy link
Member

@vankop vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

Which issue, if any, is this issue related to?

closes #4020

Is there anything in the PR that needs further explanation?

nothing

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

Don't have we a problem with node 8 runner in CI? always fails in node 8 runner

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

alexander-akait commented Aug 1, 2019

Strange error, agree, maybe concurrence

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

As I understand we using windows runners, so we can use build-in images for runners, see https://www.appveyor.com/docs/windows-images-software/#node-js instead of installing node 8 manually https://github.com/stylelint/stylelint/blob/master/appveyor.yml#L19 . I am not familiar with appveyor CI/CD, but it is pretty common functionality + if we will add lock file we could install packages faster with npm ci

Also one idea, we using cache from node_modules, but I don't know is it same cache for node-8 and node-10, if it is so it could lead to some uncommon problems, for example, node-sass build is different depends on platform, see https://github.com/sass/node-sass/blob/master/package.json , they have some postinstall that relias on platform

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

alexander-akait commented Aug 1, 2019

As I understand we using windows runners, so we can use build-in images for runners, see https://www.appveyor.com/docs/windows-images-software/#node-js instead of installing node 8 manually https://github.com/stylelint/stylelint/blob/master/appveyor.yml#L19

This will not add much time to us, but will increase the maintenance time on the project

I am not familiar with appveyor CI/CD, but it is pretty common functionality + if we will add lock file we could install packages faster with npm ci

/cc @stylelint/core what is blocker for using lock file, it is good practice

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

This will not add much time to us, but will increase the maintenance time on the project

Why it will be increased? AppVeyor is pretty popular and they maintain there images, so it will make behavior of our code expected since they create node 8 environment for us instead of using combo => unknown runner env + node 8 (If I understand how appveyor works 😁) For gitlab it is common practice

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

Why it will be increased?

Who will update the images? Tomorrow we may be busy and not find it at this time

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

Looks like we have misunderstanding each other.

How it works now:

  1. Appveyor starts default image on virtual machine
  2. clone repo in it
  3. cd in repo root
  4. Runs install commands: a. Start powershell install node 8 b. runs npm install https://github.com/stylelint/stylelint/blob/master/appveyor.yml
  5. runs tests

Cost of maintenance each version add new environment

How it will work with predefined images:

  1. Appveyor starts node 8 image on virtual machine
  2. clone repo in it
  3. cd in repo root
  4. Runs install commands: a. Start powershell install node 8 b. runs npm install https://github.com/stylelint/stylelint/blob/master/appveyor.yml
  5. runs tests

example config:

environment:
    matrix:
        - image: Node.js 8.16.0
        - image: Node.js 10.16.0

Cost of maintenance each version add new image in list

Actually workers already have node 8
Node.js 8.0.0 - 8.15.1 (x86 and x64) - default on build workers; use LTS alias for latest 8.x release

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Aug 1, 2019

If I make mistake in describing it, will be great, if you will clarify for me how it works

@hudochenkov hudochenkov merged commit 4f97b08 into stylelint:master Aug 11, 2019
@hudochenkov
Copy link
Member

  • Fixed: property-no-unknown for overflowX for CSS-in-JS (#4184).

@vankop vankop deleted the property-no-unknown branch August 11, 2019 10:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix false positives for overflowX for CSS-in-JS in property-no-unknown
3 participants