fix(deps): Switch from adbkit to @devicefarmer/adbkit npm package #2039
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2025
Some notes from some additional checks I did:
The developer working on the replacement package @devicefarmer/adbkit is also part of the organization under which the adbkit package was developed, and the new @devicefarmer/adbkit seems to be actively maintained as discussed in the issue linked above.
I also looked to the diff between the 3 adbkit/adbkit-* packages we are currently using and the 3 related package under the new devicefarmer github organization (both in their original coffeescript sources and the resulting transpiled js code) and the changes are minimal, matching what we would expect from a patch release, and nothing that should change the behavior of the code that is already using the adbkit package in web-ext.
To be totally fair, there is some small changes around the adb connection object that at a first glance may trigger some slightly different behaviors in case of connection errors, but I do have tested
web-ext run
on a real android device and tried the behavior on unexpected disconnection of the device and the behavior seems to be the same (there is some fixes that we should apply around that, but it isn't a blocker for this pull request, I'll file it as a follow up).