Skip to content

corepack pnpm node scripts/sync.mjs#2841

Open
Cool-Katt wants to merge 1 commit into
exercism:mainfrom
Cool-Katt:sync-docs-again
Open

corepack pnpm node scripts/sync.mjs#2841
Cool-Katt wants to merge 1 commit into
exercism:mainfrom
Cool-Katt:sync-docs-again

Conversation

@Cool-Katt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

trying to resolve some CI errors

@Cool-Katt Cool-Katt requested a review from SleeplessByte May 13, 2026 10:33
@SleeplessByte
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Looks like the main package upgraded to jest 30. I have not tested the repo and test runner against jest 30. Are we confident that that works?

If so, we probably need to update the flag to jest-30 as well (from jest-29).

Alternatively, downgrade to jest 29.

@Cool-Katt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Cool-Katt commented May 13, 2026

I do remember some time ago that was a question i asked but i'm not sure when it was upgraded. I assumed you have something to do with is since i've not been super active in the past few months.

I did run the tests tho, and all 168 exercises passed, so if that's anything to go by

EDIT: Looks like it was done in #2772 by @tejasbubane

@SleeplessByte
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

#2841 (comment)

That's just babel-jest, which has to be in-line with jest. If jest-30 JustWorks™ we can go ahead and merge this.

@Cool-Katt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Cool-Katt commented May 14, 2026

#2841 (comment)

That's just babel-jest, which has to be in-line with jest. If jest-30 JustWorks™ we can go ahead and merge this.

I took a quick glance at the migration docs for v29 to v30 and it looks like we should be okay (might possibly break the testSequencer that i'm not sure is being used), but I wouldn't trust myself to make that call, lol

Alternatively, i'm okay with closing this PR (and potentially downgrading to v29 on the main), but we'll eventually have to do the work to migrate so might as well.

@SleeplessByte
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yeah let's do it.

We don't use the test sequencer.

Do you want to make the same change on the test runner (update deps)? If that CI passes, I think we can merge this and that.

@Cool-Katt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Yeah let's do it.

We don't use the test sequencer.

Do you want to make the same change on the test runner (update deps)? If that CI passes, I think we can merge this and that.

@SleeplessByte
Looks like dependabot already has PRs for @jest/types, @jest/test-result and babel-jest. Do you prefer to merge those separate or should I make a new PR for all the things?

@SleeplessByte
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yeah let's do it.
We don't use the test sequencer.
Do you want to make the same change on the test runner (update deps)? If that CI passes, I think we can merge this and that.

@SleeplessByte Looks like dependabot already has PRs for @jest/types, @jest/test-result and babel-jest. Do you prefer to merge those separate or should I make a new PR for all the things?

Yeah this should be done in one go. In general those packages are not really "updatable separatedly"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants