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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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feat: implement outdated command #2497
feat: implement outdated command #2497
Changes from all commits
9672a6d
c007174
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
nit, would prefer to use a slice over map. We don't need random access or deduplication.
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.
@gcurtis may not like this but we could just return
[]lo.Tuple2[*lockfile.Package, *lockfile.Package]
that way we don't have to create a new struct at all.
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.
hm I don't mind the struct. Its nice to have the names
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.
The
map
is just a convenience for the name. Otherwise you'd have to add aName
field to the struct. That works tooThere 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.
How you prefer guys, here map doesn't create any performance problems, it is just a matter of some seconds to run the command, I chose readability over little optimization
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.
@guerinoni I think we need this function to be rewritten as so. I created this patch via
git diff --patch
, so you could try applying it: https://gist.github.com/savil/7a55e959c5eb5c5e240f57dedd5fd7adcopying here for clarity:
wdyt @gcurtis @mikeland73 ?
The benefit of this is that it also works for
@latest
. For example, when I run this on the devbox repo itself, I see:I don't think the
runx
one should be getting printed, but its cause we return true forIsDevboxPackage
for runx packages!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 aligned with this patch :)
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.
Why not runx? The versions are correct. Ideally we could also do it for flakes as well but our current flake update mechanism is a bit broken.
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.
oh good point, I forgot runx updating works properly. So all good