-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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(filter): no longer infer scope in filters #8137
feat(filter): no longer infer scope in filters #8137
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
6 Ignored Deployments
|
🟢 Turbopack Benchmark CI successful 🟢Thanks |
🟢 CI successful 🟢Thanks |
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
### Description Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package. e.g. `turbo build --filter=ui` would run `@a/ui#build` if there was a `@a/ui` package in the workspace This is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding `@b/ui` would cause *no* tasks to be run along with a zero exit code. ### Testing Instructions Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.
Can this be put behind a flag or something? It's super annoying to have to type the namespace all day. This isn't an issue unless you add the same package name twice, which is a severe skill issue anyway. Why make things unnecessarily hard and annoying to type for the 99.9% of normal users? Can we at least get an option for a default namespace so we don't have to type it over and over all day if it matches the default NS? |
Referring to https://turbo.build/repo/docs/reference/run, I think there's a similar situation that happens to script names. For local development, writing the scope is indeed annoying, but for CI, I can see why writing the full package names is the right call. Would it be possible to force full package names on CI, and have the old behavior still work for local development? |
+1. This is a degradation in user experience. On conflict, the command should run on I started a discussion here: #8524 |
Answered some concerns here: #8524 (comment) |
Elaborated that your answer doesn't address my concerns here: #8524 (comment) |
Updating all turborepo npm scripts for this rather inconvenient breaking change: vercel/turborepo#8137
turbo now wants you to specify the whole name and not just part of the name. See: vercel/turborepo#8137 Signed-off-by: Philip Molares <[email protected]>
turbo now wants you to specify the whole name and not just part of the name. See: vercel/turborepo#8137 Signed-off-by: Philip Molares <[email protected]>
Description
Previously we would infer scope for name filters if there was exactly one matching package.
e.g.
turbo build --filter=ui
would run@a/ui#build
if there was a@a/ui
package in the workspaceThis is confusing and can result in accidentally breaking filters when a conflicting package is added e.g. adding
@b/ui
would cause no tasks to be run along with a zero exit code.Testing Instructions
Updated unit test to verify inference no longer works and using the explicit package name still works.