Pin punycode to v1 #96
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
itajaja
reviewed
Nov 9, 2020
Member
itajaja
left a comment
itajaja
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this seems fair. maybe put a comment as to why
Contributor
Author
done |
itajaja
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Here's where the issue I was seeing is -- punycode was covered by Webpack 4 using punycode v1, when that's removed we have to either fix the issue at the importer, or at each consumer.
It's really annoying but the maintainers of the punycode package created v2 without browser support, so it totally breaks everything if you assume you can just upgrade
I think this is technically better done within fetch-mock, but it's using npm rather than yarn, and resolutions still haven't reached url: npm/rfcs#129. Options are to use an npm-force-resolution package, or to switch to yarn, and I'm not sure we want that much movement for this
also note I'm not sure if this is the convention for polyfills -- normally it seems like it's up to the consumer, but this is a nuance that I don't think falls under standard polyfill requirements. Plus, it's our library, presumably we're intending to go to Webpack 5 on all consumers, and this hides that nuance from consumers