Skip to content
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

Add support for i18next v24 #1093

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 26, 2024
Merged

Add support for i18next v24 #1093

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 26, 2024

Conversation

lazka
Copy link
Contributor

@lazka lazka commented Dec 9, 2024

v24 no longer supports compatibilityJSON=v3 so skip the tests for it when running with i18next v24.

Fixes #1090

Why am I submitting this PR

See title

Does it fix an existing ticket?

Yes #1090

Checklist

  • only relevant code is changed (make a diff before you submit the PR)
  • tests are included and pass: yarn test (see details here)
  • documentation is changed or added

v24 no longer supports compatibilityJSON=v3 so skip the tests for i
when running with i18next v24.

Fixes i18next#1090
Copy link

New and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package New capabilities Transitives Size Publisher
npm/i18next@24.0.5 None 0 566 kB adrai, jamuhl

🚮 Removed packages: npm/i18next@23.11.5

View full report↗︎

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
"esbuild": "^0.23.0",
"fs-extra": "^11.2.0",
"gulp-sort": "^2.0.0",
"i18next": "^23.5.1",
"i18next": "^23.5.1 || ^24.0.0",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to stop supporting v23 entirely instead?
If so, since that would be a breaking change, would it make sense to also move i18next to a peerDependency? It would help upstream projects with their dependency management.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lazka lazka Dec 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to stop supporting v23 entirely instead?

Your call. I seemed easy enough to support both, and it would make my life easier as I have various packages using i18next that depend on this, so I could update things gradually. But I'd be happy to change things if wanted.

If so, since that would be a breaking change, would it make sense to also move i18next to a peerDependency? It would help upstream projects with their dependency management.

I don't quite understand how peerDependency could help as I've never worked with that. Note that i18next-parser is importing/using i18next directly (

this.i18next = i18next.createInstance()
) and is not plugin as noted here: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v10/configuring-npm/package-json#peerdependencies but maybe I'm missing something.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.35%. Comparing base (398b9ce) to head (29d04a2).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1093   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.35%   95.35%           
=======================================
  Files          10       10           
  Lines        1918     1918           
=======================================
  Hits         1829     1829           
  Misses         89       89           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@karellm karellm merged commit e47955e into i18next:master Dec 26, 2024
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add support for i18next v24
4 participants