Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Force GitHub README to respect dark mode (function() { var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = ' .markdown-body { color-scheme: dark light; } .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; } .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; } .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; } .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; } .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; } .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; } '; document.head.appendChild(style); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer (function() { var ref = document.referrer; var terms = []; if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) { var url = new URL(ref); var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p'); if (q) { terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; }); } } if (terms.length === 0) return; var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }'; document.head.appendChild(style); function highlight(node) { if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node var text = node.textContent; var found = false; terms.forEach(function(term) { var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi'); if (regex.test(text)) { found = true; var frag = document.createDocumentFragment(); var parts = text.split(regex); parts.forEach(function(part, i) { if (i % 2 === 0) { frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part)); } else { var span = document.createElement('span'); span.className = 'userscript-highlight'; span.textContent = part; frag.appendChild(span); } }); node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node); } }); } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT']; if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) { Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight); } } } highlight(document.body); // Re-highlight on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node); }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page (function() { var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content', 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid', 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign']; function cleanUrl(url) { try { var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin); var changed = false; trackingParams.forEach(function(p) { if (u.searchParams.has(p)) { u.searchParams.delete(p); changed = true; } }); return changed ? u.toString() : url; } catch (e) { return url; } } function cleanLinks() { document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } cleanLinks(); var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1) { if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks(); node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + ' deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube (function() { function tryTheater() { var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]'); if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) { btn.click(); } } // Try immediately tryTheater(); // Try after navigation (SPA) var lastUrl = location.href; setInterval(function() { if (location.href !== lastUrl) { lastUrl = location.href; setTimeout(tryTheater, 500); } }, 1000); // Also try on player load var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content (function() { function unstick() { document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) { if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') { el.style.position = 'static'; el.style.top = 'auto'; el.style.zIndex = 'auto'; } }); } unstick(); var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Universal Dark Mode - works on any site (function() { var enabled = true; function applyDarkMode() { if (!enabled) return; // Create style element if it doesn't exist var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (!style) { style = document.createElement('style'); style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style'; document.head.appendChild(style); } // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video style.textContent = ' /* Invert everything except media */ html { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #1a1a2e !important; } /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */ img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; } /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */ .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *, [data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"], .ace_editor, .ace_editor *, .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *, .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *, .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *, .highlight, .highlight *, pre code, pre code * { filter: none !important; } /* Fix common UI elements */ .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #2d2d44 !important; border-color: #444 !important; } /* Scrollbars */ ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; } /* Selection */ ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } '; } function removeDarkMode() { var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (style) style.remove(); } // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') { e.preventDefault(); enabled = !enabled; if (enabled) { applyDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled'); } else { removeDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled'); } } }); // Apply on load applyDarkMode(); // Re-apply on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) { applyDarkMode(); } }); observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true }); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle'); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })(); deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 by imatlopez · Pull Request #3030 · npm/cli · GitHub
Skip to content

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0 - #3030

Closed
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8
Closed

deps: node-gyp@8.0.0#3030
imatlopez wants to merge 1 commit into
npm:latestfrom
imatlopez:node-gyp-8

Conversation

@imatlopez

@imatlopezimatlopez commented Apr 5, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pretty sure this will get closed, but worth a try. Seems it needs deduping with run-script (npm/run-script#26)

v8.0.0 2021-04-03

@imatlopez
imatlopez requested a review from a team as a code ownerApril 5, 2021 13:12
@darcyclarkedarcyclarke added semver:patch semver patch level for changes Release 7.x work is associated with a specific npm 7 release Needs Review labels Apr 7, 2021
@silkfire

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Opened an issue at run-script: npm/run-script#25

@imatlopezimatlopez changed the title node-gyp@8.0.0deps: node-gyp@8.0.0Apr 8, 2021
@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Dependency/subdependency updates tend to be taken care of by the npm cli team itself during releases (which is usually thursdays, so that should be today)

@imatlopez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@wraithgar knew it was gonna get closed, hopefully at least I brought attention to this :) (please close the PR in run-script too)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I suppose this issue is closed. So there is apparently no action being taken right at the moment.

But I wanted to say: please ping some of the node-gyp folks, at least @rvagg, before merging node-gyp 8. I think he's hoping node-gyp version 8 has more time in the wild before being merged into npm. There were big changes around dropping Python 2, not just the request deprecation warning going away.

(I contributed a bit to some of the changes as well, so I wouldn't mind staying in the loop, personally. I will try to keep my eye out for any such PRs for bumping node-gyp in npm.)

@wraithgar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@DeeDeeG Yes we now plan on first evaluating what the update would mean. Y'alls expertise is very appreciated. This update was NOT part of the latest release, as I had originally assumed when I made that comment. Since looking at the changes there were two things that gave us pause, one was changing how some windows cli args were handled (a situation that is already something in which we are trying to squash bugs in the cli) and of course the update to gyp itself.

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Veering very mildly off-topic to a general comment:

Although I'm not an official member of the node-gyp team, so I don't want to get out ahead of them in remarking on process considerations, as a recurring open-source contributor to that module I extend an extra-warm welcome to anyone who maintains npm to stop by and take a look at any of my PRs there while they're open, or to drop a comment with your thoughts even after they have closed.

I am always trying to create general solutions that work for all the users. And it is always something in the back of my mind "hmm, how will this be for npm users? Does this meet the industrial-strength quality needs of Node/npm? Have I failed to anticipate something that would affect them?" And so on. Direct comments from npm maintainers would be much appreciated for when changing things that might affect npm users... (Which means basically all of node-gyp.)

Of course I try to do my best without such feedback, but when it comes to review, the earlier the better I think.

If I might be so bold as to suggest the communication between npm and node-gyp be more frequent and proactive, potentially before a new node-gyp release is cut. But I don't really know the relationship, or how much under an independent direction node-gyp is meant to be or not. (And yet of course there is the always-present reality of time constraints and limited bandwidth for communication in open-source. Nevertheless, I thought I would propose it.)

@DeeDeeG

DeeDeeG commented Apr 11, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@wraithgar If the team has any specific concerns about the node-gyp code, I'd be interested to hear it. Especially if it involves areas of the code that I touched. For example, I'm working to improve the Python detection on Windows, which I was already the last person to update, and I'm not sure if the "changing how some windows cli args were handled" you refer to has anything to do with that?

I already heard from someone that the existing code in that area from node-gyp v8.0.0 can fail for their use-case, so while I'm working on the fix it would be great to hear from more stakeholders what they think needs to be changed or improved.

(I personally am not as familiar with the underlying gyp code, though, and I'm not super well-versed in Python. I'm not afraid to take a look at it, but no promises there. The person who did much of the gyp re-write is fairly active so they might be able to address any concerns there as well. And I'm good with manual QA testing, so if there are usage scenarios you'd like to see tested, I can try and report back some results.)

Best Regards.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Release 7.xwork is associated with a specific npm 7 releasesemver:patchsemver patch level for changes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@imatlopez@silkfire@wraithgar@DeeDeeG@darcyclarke