feat(version): Skip repository validation when git is unused

[marikaner]

Do not fail version update when git features are not used.

Description

I am just skipping the check on whether we are @ HEAD when git is not used.

Motivation and Context

closes #1869

How Has This Been Tested?

I tried it with our project, but I did not add any automatic tests. It works in both fixed and locked mode and still throws an error in case git commands are not skipped.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[evocateur]

no tests, lockfile doesn't need to change, and the problems i described in the linked issue

[marikaner]

Thank you for your review, @evocateur. I reverted the changes to the lockfile and will add tests as soon as we agree on the usefulness of this PR ;)

I finally understood your concerns. I misunderstood the purpose of the fixed mode (even though I read your documentation multiple times *) and am now aware that my issue is rather a corner case as you will basically only not need to be on a branch when using --force-publish as well as skipping tagging + pushing.
I still think it might be an improvement as it moves lerna's behaviour closer to npm's (npm does not fail without git).

Please take a look at my current implementation and let me know whether this goes into the right direction in your opinion. I just overrode the requiresGit method and skipped all branch related actions accordingly.

* "Use this if you want to automatically tie all package versions together." confirmed my intuitive understanding...

[marikaner]

@evocateur, I added some tests, one is still failing, if will try to get this fixed if I have time this evening, otherwise maybe you can help?

[marikaner]

@evocateur thank you. I removed forcePublish and independent mode from the conditions for requiresGit. Also, I moved the initialization of the command properties to configureProperties and adjusted the test conditions accordingly.

[marikaner]

@evocateur What do you think?

[evocateur]

Looks great, well done!

[evocateur]

I'll merge this once you've rebased.

[evocateur]

Thanks!

[marikaner]

Wohoo!

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked because there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.