fix: database package not found #4471
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
|
Thank you for following the naming conventions for pull request titles! 🙏 |
WalkthroughThe pull request involves updating the dependency specifications in the Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
packages/lib/package.json (1)
22-24: Consider documenting workspace dependency requirementsTo prevent similar issues in the future, consider:
- Adding a note in the repository's contributing guidelines about using
workspace:*for internal dependencies- Setting up a pre-commit hook or CI check to validate workspace dependency specifications
- Adding this requirement to your package.json schema validation if you use one
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/lib/package.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/lib/package.json (1)
22-24: LGTM! This change correctly fixes the database package resolution.
The update from * to workspace:* ensures these dependencies are properly resolved from the local workspace instead of attempting to fetch from the npm registry. This change aligns with the monorepo structure and matches the pattern used by other workspace dependencies.
Let's verify if there are any other packages that might need similar updates:
✅ Verification successful
All workspace dependencies are properly configured
The verification process shows that all @formbricks dependencies across the monorepo are correctly using the workspace:* prefix, as no other patterns were found. The changes in this PR align with the existing workspace configuration and successfully fix the database package resolution issue.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other potential workspace dependencies that might need updating
# Look for @formbricks dependencies that don't use workspace: prefix
# Search all package.json files
fd package.json --type f --exec sh -c '
echo "=== Checking {}" &&
jq -r "
.dependencies // {} |
to_entries[] |
select(.key | startswith(\"@formbricks/\")) |
select(.value != \"workspace:*\") |
\"\(.key): \(.value)\"
" {} 2>/dev/null
'
Length of output: 1062
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find @formbricks dependencies without workspace:* prefix
# We'll use ripgrep to search for @formbricks dependencies in package.json files
# and exclude the workspace:* pattern
rg --type json '"@formbricks/[^"]+"\s*:\s*"[^"]*"' -g 'package.json' --no-heading | \
grep -v 'workspace:\*' | \
grep '@formbricks'
Length of output: 125
Fixes #4464
This pull request includes changes to the
packages/lib/package.jsonfile to update the dependency versions for several@formbrickspackages. The most important change is the modification of the versioning scheme for these dependencies.Dependency version updates:
@formbricks/api,@formbricks/database, and@formbricks/typesto use theworkspace:*versioning scheme instead of the wildcard*version.Summary by CodeRabbit