build: Update monorepo internal dependencies

[edison-cy-yang]

Motivations

While trying to implement Turborepo caching in this repo, I found a few issues with how we're managing internal dependencies in the repo:

• Internal packages listed in the root package.json. This was probably from us building for Storybook v7 at root previously
• internal packages listed in peerDependencies but not in devDependencies, and sometimes in dependencies at the same time
• Internal dependency just simply not listed (hooks depends on formatters)

This PR fixes the internal dependencies in the monorepo.

Changes

components-native

• @jobber/hooks added to peerDependencies
• Both @jobber/hooks and @jobber/design added to devDependencies
• Set tsconfig.build.tsbuildinfo to not be shipped in bundle output

components

• @jobber/formatters removed from dependencies
• @jobber/formatters @jobber/design @jobber/hooks added to devDependencies
• @jobber/formatters added to peerDependencies

hooks

• @jobber/formatters added to peerDependencies

root

• Removed all @jobber/* packages from devDependencies

Added

Changed

Deprecated

Removed

Fixed

Security

Testing

Changes can be
tested via Pre-release

---

In Atlantis we use Github's built in pull request reviews.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying atlantis with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	2e16e3a
Status:	✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://e20b5c51.atlantis.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://edi-cleanup-internal-depende.atlantis.pages.dev

View logs

[edison-cy-yang]

This >= 2 is an issue and makes CI fail on scripts/preventManualRelease.js. The script only checks for @jobber/ dependencies in dependencies or devDependencies. @jdeichert I dont have too much context on what kind of manual release we were trying to prevent, but wondering if it makes sense to update the check to allow >=?

[jdeichert]

Ha, that's interesting and I'm actually not sure why that script fails on that.

However, I did try this with * instead and I think that's completely fine? Your peerDep rule means that >=2 is required, and the devDep being * seems to work fine. At least bootstrap succeeds for me.

[edison-cy-yang]

@jdeichert thinking about this more, the version in devDep probably doesn't matter for the internal dependencies? The "version" will be whatever that's in the codebase right now.

[jdeichert]

Yupp, that's why I think * is fine!

[edison-cy-yang]

@jdeichert I ran the diff output action and there are diffs. However I think there will always be diffs since package.json is updated. Would it be better to diff excluding package.json and *.tsbuildinfo?

[github-actions]

Published Pre-release for 753c899 with versions:

  - @jobber/components@6.115.3-edicleanu-753c899.3+753c89916
  - @jobber/components-native@0.97.2-edicleanu-753c899.26+753c89916
  - @jobber/design@0.92.1-edicleanu-753c899.11+753c89916
  - @jobber/eslint-config@0.13.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916
  - @jobber/formatters@0.5.1-edicleanu-753c899.262+753c89916
  - @jobber/generators@0.12.6-edicleanu-753c899.1+753c89916
  - @jobber/hooks@2.19.4-edicleanu-753c899.153+753c89916
  - @jobber/stylelint-config@0.7.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916

To install the new version(s) for Web run:

npm install @jobber/components@6.115.3-edicleanu-753c899.3+753c89916 @jobber/design@0.92.1-edicleanu-753c899.11+753c89916 @jobber/eslint-config@0.13.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916 @jobber/formatters@0.5.1-edicleanu-753c899.262+753c89916 @jobber/generators@0.12.6-edicleanu-753c899.1+753c89916 @jobber/hooks@2.19.4-edicleanu-753c899.153+753c89916 @jobber/stylelint-config@0.7.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916

To install the new version(s) for Mobile run:

npm install @jobber/components-native@0.97.2-edicleanu-753c899.26+753c89916 @jobber/design@0.92.1-edicleanu-753c899.11+753c89916 @jobber/eslint-config@0.13.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916 @jobber/formatters@0.5.1-edicleanu-753c899.262+753c89916 @jobber/generators@0.12.6-edicleanu-753c899.1+753c89916 @jobber/hooks@2.19.4-edicleanu-753c899.153+753c89916 @jobber/stylelint-config@0.7.3-edicleanu-753c899.1300+753c89916

[jdeichert]

@jdeichert I ran the diff output action and there are diffs. However I think there will always be diffs since package.json is updated. Would it be better to diff excluding package.json and *.tsbuildinfo?

@edison-cy-yang I saw your diff output.

1. Should we ignore package.json? I don't think we need to! Most of the time, the diff will be small and although we know it will cause a diff, the Diff Outputs action failing on that is not a bad thing, it's just validating our expectations that things are changing in terms of what the shipped package includes. If this becomes really annoying, I guess we could make a workflow option that disables diffing package.json. I just personally don't think it's a bad thing 👍

2. Should we ignore *.tsbuildinfo? Actually, this seems like a file we shouldn't be shipping in our package at all? Possibly package.json files array needs to be updated to exclude *.tsbuildinfo. You could make that cleanup here, or we could open a separate PR to do that.

[edison-cy-yang]

@jdeichert I ran the diff output action and there are diffs. However I think there will always be diffs since package.json is updated. Would it be better to diff excluding package.json and *.tsbuildinfo?

@edison-cy-yang I saw your diff output.

1. Should we ignore package.json? I don't think we need to! Most of the time, the diff will be small and although we know it will cause a diff, the Diff Outputs action failing on that is not a bad thing, it's just validating our expectations that things are changing in terms of what the shipped package includes. If this becomes really annoying, I guess we could make a workflow option that disables diffing package.json. I just personally don't think it's a bad thing 👍
2. Should we ignore *.tsbuildinfo? Actually, this seems like a file we shouldn't be shipping in our package at all? Possibly package.json files array needs to be updated to exclude *.tsbuildinfo. You could make that cleanup here, or we could open a separate PR to do that.

@jdeichert I did the tsbuildinfo cleanup. AS you can see from this output diff, the only differences are package.json, tsconfig.build.json and tsconfig.build.tsbuildinfo gone from bundle output.

[jdeichert]

I did the tsbuildinfo cleanup. AS you can see from this output diff, the only differences are package.json, tsconfig.build.json and tsconfig.build.tsbuildinfo gone from bundle output.

Yupp, looks good! I do question whether tsconfig.build.json and tsconfig.json should be included in the dist dir, looks like they do get bundled right now. I found it's because they were missing in the exclude config. Up to you if you want to make this change here or not.

I'll complete my review next week 👍

[edison-cy-yang]

npm run clean was not called when running npm run build. This build:clean does not delete the build cache. Removing this script to be more consistent with other packages.

[edison-cy-yang]

@jdeichert New diff shows that tsconfig.build.json, tsconfig.json, and tsconfig.build.tsbuildinfo are all removed from the bundle output. The only other change is package.json