-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
[v18.x backport] deps: upgrade npm to 9.2.0 #46230
Conversation
PR-URL: nodejs#45693 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruy Adorno <ruyadorno@google.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#45780 Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com>
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Removing "fast-track" label because I don't think we want to do that on an LTS backport. |
thank you @Trott! 🙏 |
#46242 fixes a critical bug with |
with above change you can also change the title of this PR - |
77a87b5
to
5648ed1
Compare
I'm rolling back this PR to npm 9.2.0 as that is the latest version of npm 9 currently shipping in Node.js 19. npm 9.3.1 is currently on main awaiting a release. I'd like to propose that we work on testing with what has shipped in 19.x, agree to land it, get the backport landed, then independently decide if we want to upgrade to 9.3.1 prior to the LTS release. CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3076/ |
fwiw, our own citgm suite is not as diverse but i did run it as an exercise: https://github.com/npm/cli/actions/runs/3943506886 notably the tests for |
the bug was introduced in 9.3.0 and resolved in 9.3.1, backporting 9.2.0 should be fine. the only version we explicitly do not want to backport is 9.3.0 |
TL;DR There are 2 new CITGM failures in this PR as opposed to the CITGM run for the release of v18.13.0 but neither are indications of an problems with npm 9, this PR should be good to go 👍🏼 Failure 1: We are unable to reproduce the https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-nobuild/1489/ Failure 2: The npm 9 failures appear to be related to the npm test suite and appear to already be broken on Node.js 19 CITGM as can be seen in the runs for v19.4.0. We need to investigate how to fix this but after reviewing the logs with @nlf we've confirmed that this is a mismatch in snapshots due to system configuration in CITGM (changing tmp directories via env vars). We got a copy of the env vars and @nlf is going to take a look and get the test suite in npm 9 fixed so that it doesn't break in the CitGM environment. |
Uh, oops, I updated this to 9.3.1. Feel free to push out the last two commits if you want to roll it back to 9.2.0 and apologies in advance. But I think 9.3.1 should be good? |
@Trott since 9.3.1 hasn't made it to current yet I wanted to land 9.2.0 and have a separate conversation about updating to 9.3.1 after it's been out in curent |
8ee4933
to
5648ed1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 to landing npm@9 in 18.
I tried skimming CITGM - it's reassuring there are no net new widespread or consistent failures. Although, we do have a high number of baseline failures (~140) in CITGM at the moment. But, I'm hopeful the baking time of npm@9 in Node.js 19 would have surfaced anything problematic.
landed in 7599b91 |
Backport of #45780 and #45693.
Hopefully I'm not jumping the gun here. @nodejs/releasers
This is just a cherry-pick of the relevant commits. No merge conflicts needed to be resolved or anything like that.
@nodejs/lts @nodejs/releasers @nodejs/npm