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

🛠 Repo: Replace fs-extra with newer fs built-ins #5266

Open
5 tasks done
JoshuaKGoldberg opened this issue Dec 4, 2024 · 3 comments
Open
5 tasks done

🛠 Repo: Replace fs-extra with newer fs built-ins #5266

JoshuaKGoldberg opened this issue Dec 4, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
area: repository tooling concerning ease of contribution status: in triage a maintainer should (re-)triage (review) this issue

Comments

@JoshuaKGoldberg
Copy link
Member

Tooling Suggestion Checklist

Overview

I ran eslint-plugin-depend on the Mocha repo. It had two reports about fs-extra:

/Users/josh/repos/mocha/test/integration/helpers.js
  5:12  error  "fs-extra" should be replaced with an alternative package. Read more here: https://github.com/es-tooling/module-replacements/blob/main/docs/modules/fs-extra.md  depend/ban-dependencies

/Users/josh/repos/mocha/test/integration/options/watch.spec.js
  3:12  error  "fs-extra" should be replaced with an alternative package. Read more here: https://github.com/es-tooling/module-replacements/blob/main/docs/modules/fs-extra.md  depend/ban-dependencies

Per https://github.com/es-tooling/module-replacements/blob/main/docs/modules/fs-extra.md:

fs-extra adds some file system methods that previously were not included in the native fs module and added Promise support to the fs methods.
Many of the fs-extra modules have since been implemented natively by Node.

Proposal: let's switch to native node:fs / node:fs/promises.

Additional Info

Note that both are within test/integration. This shouldn't impact users.

@JoshuaKGoldberg JoshuaKGoldberg added area: repository tooling concerning ease of contribution status: in triage a maintainer should (re-)triage (review) this issue labels Dec 4, 2024
@ericcornelissen
Copy link
Contributor

Hey - first time contributor here. I liked the idea of this kind of maintenance work and figured I could do this without reading the Contributing Guidelines but then I noticed the status: accepting prs1 requirement.

Since this issue doesn't have that label yet but I already did the work, I'll just leave the changeset here: main...ericcornelissen:mocha:5266-fs-extra. Happy to open a PR if that's wanted 🙂

Footnotes

  1. the link of which here seems to be incorrect btw. The text says status: accepting prs but points to the help-wanted label instead (which no longer exists)

@JoshuaKGoldberg
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @ericcornelissen, much appreciated! I'd put it in status: in triage in case someone else from @mochajs/maintenance-crew has time to review and wants to put their own thoughts forward. They've both been pretty slammed with other things this year so I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two this just defaults to status: accepting prs. At which point 👍 to your draft changeset becoming a PR.

the link of which here seems to be incorrect btw. The text says status: accepting prs but points to the help-wanted label instead (which no longer exists)

Ha, good catch. Up for sending a PR? I think we can skip filing an issue for a quick docs typo like that. 🙂

@ericcornelissen
Copy link
Contributor

[...] I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two this just defaults to status: accepting prs. At which point 👍 to your draft changeset becoming a PR.

Thanks for clarifying the process. I'll keep an eye out for that and submit a PR when it switched 👍

Ha, good catch. Up for sending a PR? I think we can skip filing an issue for a quick docs typo like that. 🙂

Will do in just a moment 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: repository tooling concerning ease of contribution status: in triage a maintainer should (re-)triage (review) this issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants