infra: pnpm removed their strictness

[Shinigami92]

pnpm removed their strictness in v9.2 🎉

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	77a0913
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fakerjs/deploys/666765565e2a840008b57fdc
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2945.fakerjs.dev
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (7a9b4b6) to head (77a0913).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #2945      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.96%   99.95%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        2987     2987              
  Lines      216037   216037              
  Branches      601      947     +346     
==========================================
- Hits       215963   215941      -22     
- Misses         74       96      +22     

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[ST-DDT]

I haven't tested it outside of corepack.

[Shinigami92]

I haven't tested it outside of corepack.

I already did in node-pg-migrate

[xDivisionByZerox]

For people (like myself) that are not as up to date in the ecosystem discussions: pnpm/pnpm#8087

[Shinigami92]

For people (like myself) that are not as up to date in the ecosystem discussions: pnpm/pnpm#8087

I would like to remember to read the changelog while approving PRs like #2943

• chore(deps): update pnpm to v9.2.0 #2943

[matthewmayer]

For people (like myself) that are not as up to date in the ecosystem discussions: pnpm/pnpm#8087

I would like to remember to read the changelog while approving PRs like #2943

• chore(deps): update pnpm to v9.2.0 #2943

Sounds like a semver-major change to me 😀

[xDivisionByZerox]

For people (like myself) that are not as up to date in the ecosystem discussions: pnpm/pnpm#8087

I would like to remember to read the changelog while approving PRs like #2943 [...]

Sounds like a semver-major change to me 😀

Exactly, the version change log was higly missleading IMO. At the poitn of reading the change, I wasn't aware of that this is a setting we currently use and had forgotten about it as it only pointed ot the "true" case. Sure I could have put some more brain power into it. at the time of approving the original PR, but I do not think that is usually required for minor version updates.

[Shinigami92]

Not sure if they are so major strict, but it is also not a breaking change
They just don't throw an error anymore cause so many people complained about their v9.0 decision (I was one of them)

[matthewmayer]

These two changes seem contradictory in the changelog.

[ST-DDT]

Thank you for highlighting the relevant sections of the changelog for the discussion. I was about to ask.

I have read it before approving and multiple times now and I seem to fail to recognise the "major breaking change" part. I dont see any effect this change has on our project except for not requiring the workaround removed in this PR anymore.
I'm not affected by both the original issue and the workaround so I'm not complaining.
Though I admit I missread the linked issue and thought the strict check was added in a minor v9.x instead of v9.0, but since it was removed it doesnt matter either way.