parse package.json instead of running npm|yarn list

[cecyc]

WHY are these changes introduced?

Fixes #1683

WHAT is this pull request doing?

Instead of running npm | yarn list to find the renderer_package version that is needed for the extension to run, parse the package.json file and get the version from there.

Pros:

• This reduces code complexity as we no longer have to make a JS call to find the renderer version
• Reduces issues when there are multiple versions of a dependency when running npm | yarn list
• There is a known bug with the list command on earlier versions of Node, and not having to run the command would eliminate said bug

How to test your changes?

• Run shopify extension serve, shopify extension register and shopify extension push on a PRODUCT_SUBSCRIPTION extension

Tophatted:

Product Subscription

• javascript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• javascript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push

Checkout UI

• javascript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• javascript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push

Post Purchase

• javascript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• javascript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push
• typescript react
  • serve
  • register
  • push

Post-release steps

N/A

Update checklist

• I've added a CHANGELOG entry for this PR (if the change is public-facing)
• I've considered possible cross-platform impacts (Mac, Linux, Windows).
• I've left the version number as is (we'll handle incrementing this when releasing).
• I've included any post-release steps in the section above.

[t6d]

Changes look mostly good to me. I left a suggestion, one follow up for @vividviolet and a question regarding some stubs in the test suite.

[pepicrft]

Thanks for improving this @cecyc. It'll make the package detection in projects much more reliable 🚀

[cecyc]

@pepibumur Implemented most of your suggestions, thank you so much for the feedback!

The only things I could not implement were:

• Adding support for --path. I like this idea and I want to do this in the future, but it's not something I want to implement without speccing it out more, plus I want this fix to go out on Monday :)
• Not stubbing out standard libraries: I generally agree with this as well, and I think adding support for path will help in implementing your suggestion in the future

LMK if you have any other thoughts, like I said, my goal is to merge this Friday Oct. 29 so it can go out with Monday's release on Nov. 1.

Thanks!

[pepicrft]

That's awesome, thanks @cecyc. I agree, we can go ahead and merge and keep this in mind going forward for future PRs. Excellent job 👏🏼

[elanalynn]

🎩'd with react.tsx template and all the commands ran successfully. Nice work!