-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
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
feat!: Support Node 18+ #2011
feat!: Support Node 18+ #2011
Conversation
tests/fixtures/nodejs_mono_repo_without_version/packages/no_version/package.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ cd .. | |||
@rem we upgrade Node.js in the image: | |||
SET PATH=%PATH%;/cygdrive/c/Program Files/nodejs/npm | |||
|
|||
call nvm use v14.17.3 | |||
call nvm use 18 |
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.
should it be 18.20?
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.
This should install and use the latest version of Node 18
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.
I think it's better to specify given we had that before, is there a reason you think it shouldn't be specified?
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.
This would ensure the version tested has all of the latest bug fixes and features.
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.
Yes but then we could potentially be installing on other versions which would make our testing unpredictable. Note our previous versions, which have all specified an exact version: #378
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.
I see we have a pattern from previous iterations - however it doesn't necessarily mean it was best practice (even that linked PR suggests the same - the patch was a required manual update that we shouldn't have to do each time).
The stability for the oldest supported LTS is far less-likely to receive a bug or breaking change than a newer LTS, while taking advantage of any provided security patches. See the following:
- https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHANGELOG_V18.md
- https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/changelogs/CHANGELOG_V14.md
In short, we'd be preferring the problem of slight risk of a broken release vs getting pinged for manual security patching. I'd rather deal with the slight risk of a broken release as it would block releases across the ecosystem (all open source Node projects), which wouldn't make it a pressing matter for just us.
synthtool/gcp/templates/node_library/.kokoro/presubmit/node14/common.cfg
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Please use this as a model if you have any other questions! https://github.com/googleapis/synthtool/pull/1825/files |
We'll want to follow up with a PR to update the Docker image dependencies once these are updated: https://github.com/googleapis/synthtool/blob/master/docker/owlbot/nodejs_mono_repo/Dockerfile#L55C1-L56C79 |
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ cd .. | |||
@rem we upgrade Node.js in the image: | |||
SET PATH=%PATH%;/cygdrive/c/Program Files/nodejs/npm | |||
|
|||
call nvm use v14.17.3 | |||
call nvm use 18 |
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.
I think it's better to specify given we had that before, is there a reason you think it shouldn't be specified?
…o prepare-node-18
Adding support for Node 18+. Dropping older versions of Node.