Adam Wójcik
@Saurabh7019, @nicodecleyre do you think we could open this up? This is something we already discussed internally I just moved it to GH so we may start working on it...
@Saurabh7019, @nicodecleyre I was thinking on this so more and I wonder if this would be the most optimal approach. ## The problem I see It may prove a total...
@Saurabh7019 to tackle some of your feed > A couple of potential issues: I am assuming we would rely on .yo-rc.json to check the current version and show only higher...
> > I think that if the `.yo-rc.json` is missing then your project is in a not valid state and things just don't work right 🤔? > > hmm SPFx...
ok I think the idea fits. @nicodecleyre do you want to add anything else? in the mean time I will open this up and take it
@Saurabh7019 in this case we need to research how we may determine if the project is SPFx type BUT we need keep a look out on SPFx 1.22 to have...
> 70 was unbelievably high indeed. The actual number is much lower. A lot of samples are empty with only a note **_This sample is available in the [PnP Starter...
@Saurabh7019 it is a bit confusing I agree. Maybe we could have different names indeed. The first option which is validate local setup NOT in context of any spfx project...
@Saurabh7019, @nicodecleyre do you think we could open this up? This is something we already discussed internally I just moved it to GH so we may start working on it...
lets put this on hold till we merge this PR #621 since it already adds `spfx doctor` command to SPFx Toolkit. When this gets merged it should be quite easy...