You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Running an upgrade command on a specific workspace results in the range of the same dependency in another workspace being changed.
To reproduce
Run git clone https://github.com/renovate-reproductions/20281 && cd 20281 && yarn workspace @renovate-yarn-repro/package-2 up '@types/express@^4.17.16'.
Our goal here is to bump the locked version from 4.16.16 to 4.16.17, but the change of range in package-1's package.json is undesired. Any other command(s) which would achieve the same would be an acceptable workaround for us.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This command upgrades the packages matching the list of specified patterns to their latest available version across the whole project (regardless of whether they're part of dependencies or devDependencies - peerDependencies won't be affected). This is a project-wide command: all workspaces will be upgraded in the process. https://yarnpkg.com/cli/up
Self-service
Describe the bug
Running an upgrade command on a specific workspace results in the range of the same dependency in another workspace being changed.
To reproduce
Run
git clone https://github.com/renovate-reproductions/20281 && cd 20281 && yarn workspace @renovate-yarn-repro/package-2 up '@types/express@^4.17.16'
.git diff
then reveals (truncated for brevity):Environment
System: OS: macOS 13.2.1 CPU: (8) arm64 Apple M1 Pro Binaries: Node: 16.16.0 - /private/var/folders/q_/8zp8yd4169nbwftw00ywxdlw0000gr/T/xfs-70396952/node Yarn: 3.4.1 - /private/var/folders/q_/8zp8yd4169nbwftw00ywxdlw0000gr/T/xfs-70396952/yarn npm: 9.6.2 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v16.16.0/bin/npm
Additional context
Our goal here is to bump the locked version from 4.16.16 to 4.16.17, but the change of range in package-1's
package.json
is undesired. Any other command(s) which would achieve the same would be an acceptable workaround for us.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: