-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
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
fix info command unsupported warning #1093
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: d770bf9 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
Co-authored-by: Edward Foyle <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of this, shouldn't we follow the CDK model and update our supported node versions. If CDK doesn't work with node 21, we won't be able to fix customer issues anyways.
I'm fine with suppressing this warning, but we should replace it with our own warning if customer's node version is outside of amplify's supported versions.
I 100% agree with @Amplifiyer . Hiding compatibility warnings is counter productive to debugabbility.
If we do this we should also establish mechanism to track CDK supported Node, so that we proactively make changes on our side. Therefore my recommendation is to "do nothing" at this time. |
I was thinking if this can be a callout on the create flow/sandbox but a warning in a informational output/command doesn't feel like great DX tho |
Customers can always change their node version after the create-amplify flow, or use a different version of node in their CI/CD pipeline. This is an ideal DX for developers in my opinion to warn them when they are using unsupported runtime. |
Is this message suppressed anywhere else? It feels odd that it creeps up here, and while it's an important message and folks should be aware, it's clogging the output of what we care about which is the AWS environment variables. CDK rightfully obfuscates sensitive values which was one of the motivations for using CDK to read these values. imo it does not provide a ton of value in Would it be better if this was lifted to the beginning or end of the output instead of interweaved in the env info? |
It's also not entirely clear that this message is from CDK, not Amplify. Additionally, node version is already captured towards the top of the output. |
My 2c: suppress this warning in And then do we need our own environment variable like |
agreed
oh goodness, could this be controlled by the log level? |
can we add an upper bound on the existing https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v10/configuring-npm/package-json#engines this should print the node version warning |
That would print a warning when installing, but would not print a warning after that. However, since we are suppressing installation output in |
that is a good callout. You'd only see it in the pipeline or on the next clone + setup. With the addition of and/or on sandbox startup? (which is essentially |
Just confirmed that Since currently this seems to be the only place where this warning is surfacing, I'd say let's wait to have this (or our own) warning in the sandbox/create-amplify or pipeline-deploy commands before removing it from the |
following up on this, on create-amplify and subsequent installations the |
Problem
Issue number, if available:
closes: #1000
when using node versions such as node 21, the cdk info command shows
Changes
Corresponding docs PR, if applicable:
add env variable to
JSII_SILENCE_WARNING_UNTESTED_NODE_VERSION
this execa process to silence the warningtested locally with node 21
![image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/87995712/309152513-9ec66206-2081-4bea-8ea0-449469cfb163.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.S9b7jEffBJG8bNkJtbiVmAVvv7lMWn7CSm4U983sqTs)
Validation
Checklist
run-e2e
label set.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.