-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
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
context.getPhysicalFilename is not a function #434
Comments
I had same problem. After deeleting |
Same problem here. |
super helpful! |
As first line of the CHANGELOG entry for v4.0.0 states:
Because the peer-dependency is also set as to v7.28.0 you probably got n warning when you ran your yarn / npm install that stated that the eslint version you have installed does not match what was required by peer dependencies.
react-scripts relies on |
Users who have ESLint >=7.28 installed can still encounter this error when using other dependencies that depend on ESLint. My suggestion was for the documentation to address how to resolve this error, which the CHANGELOG neither does nor is it easily accessible, versus the README or an FAQ.
There in fact is not a warning, because I have both versions of ESLint installed. That is the point of this issue. It is quite possible for users to have both installed and get no warnings. They only get cryptic errors which do not tell how to resolve the issue.
Correct.
I feel like unblocking users who encounter common errors is within scope. "I installed Nonetheless, my intention was for it to become Google-able, as there were zero results for this error previously. Hopefully that goal is still met, even if the project doesn't formally support the unblocking process. 👍 |
Also "solved" by reverting to
|
Small addition: if you're using yarn v2+ the command has been renamed to the following |
Another addition:
Unfortunately this seems not to be correct. Creating a new react app using cra installs current react-scripts |
For what it's worth, googling this error brought me straight here, and the advice to upgrade to |
I had something else triggering this where just doing a recursive update wasn't persistent for me - deleting yarn.lock and reinstalling, or doing recursive upgrade didn't work, I didn't inspect too much because it also works if you just put a resolutions block in your package.json:
|
Hmm, anyone know what is the equal command of |
Replaced buggy tsdx lint jaredpalmer/tsdx#1056 Package.json eslint non standard prop fails with tsdx due to old eslint prettier/eslint-plugin-prettier#434
Updated react-scripts to react-scripts@4.0.3 to resolve the incompatibility of eslint and eslint-plugin-prettier. |
Just add a follow up to my original question:
|
I got this recently due to multiple eslint versions being installed in my monorepo. Resolved the issue and it's better now :) |
I'm having this issue with |
Fixed after updating ESLint
|
eslint-plugin-prettier@4.0.0
is not compatible witheslint@7.11.0
and requires an upgrade toeslint@7.32.0
. This is particularly relevant asreact-scripts
relies oneslint@7.11.0
.What version of
eslint
are you using? 7.11.0, 7.32.0What version of
prettier
are you using? 2.3.2What version of
eslint-plugin-prettier
are you using? 4.0.0Please paste any applicable config files that you're using (e.g.
.prettierrc
or.eslintrc
files)What source code are you linting?
https://github.com/CharlesStover/charlesstover.com/
What did you expect to happen?
Success.
What actually happened?
https://github.com/CharlesStover/charlesstover.com/runs/3511215999?check_suite_focus=true
However, you can see from the eslint step that running
eslint
succeeds. The only two differences between these two steps is the version of ESLint being run.By upgrading
react-scripts
'seslint
version withyarn up -R eslint
, this error is resolved.I'm opening this issue for two reasons:
yarn up -R eslint
.react-scripts
. 🙂I noticed this package lists the correct semvar in peer dependencies, but there are no warning or errors about versioning in the logs (see: GitHub workflow links above).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: