parse-community
refactor: upgrade components
This updates the dependencies to the latest versions and fixes few bugs and warnings. I switched from npm to yarn since npm was not able to resolve dependencies. It needs testing in the graphql area.
| Warnings | |
|---|---|
| :warning: | Please add a changelog entry for your changes. |
Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS
I switched from npm to yarn since npm was not able to resolve dependencies
@romanbsd Did you use npm 7 when you had this issue, and now it is working because you use npm 6?
What should we do with this PR? I'm concerned about the many major version upgrades in the dependencies without any significant code changes in dashboard. It's possible that we are breaking something and don't notice it, unless we go through the dashboard and test some functionality I guess.
It's up to you what to do about this PR. For me it was the first step before trying to modernize the project and bring the components to the latest recommended practices. It was working for me (tm), but this definitely needs more testing.
It this PR in response to https://github.com/parse-community/parse-dashboard/issues/1679?
This PR is a preparation for https://github.com/parse-community/parse-dashboard/pull/1761
Then how is this PR related to https://github.com/parse-community/parse-dashboard/issues/1679, which seems to be a more fundamental change. Does it make sense to do the changes in this PR, or would that become obsolete anyway with #1679?
Besides upgrading the components, it also has one bugfix: https://github.com/parse-community/parse-dashboard/pull/1677/files#diff-f4ba6f461663e0326e0cd8e081894cc4b977bacd715975017d1c09a41c76fa02L11
It's related, as it's a first step for 1679. But this PR can be reviewed in isolation. It's not related per se, and was opened before.
I suppose we could proceed this way:
- merge master into this and resolve conflicts
- test out the dashboard thoroughly by hand, since there are some major version upgrades and we don't have UI tests
@romanbsd would you want to do (1)? Then I would take care of (2).