Add missing package-lock.json to code-reference-finder and research-sentry - #259
Open
Hotragn wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Add missing package-lock.json to code-reference-finder and research-sentry#259Hotragn wants to merge 1 commit into
Hotragn wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…entry These were the only two recipes with a package.json and no lockfile, so npm ci cannot run in either and there is nothing pinned: every install re-resolves every caret range, and OSV-Scanner has no lock to read, which means neither recipe's dependency tree is covered by the repo's own vulnerability scanning. Checked first that the absence looks accidental rather than deliberate. Neither declares a packageManager, neither has a yarn/pnpm/bun lockfile, and neither .gitignore mentions lockfiles -- both ignore only node_modules. The other 30 recipes all commit one. Generated with npm install --package-lock-only, so no source and no package.json changes. lockfileVersion 3 in both, matching all 32 existing lockfiles. Both recipes declare "@tiny-fish/sdk": "latest", which the lock now pins to 0.4.1. That is what an install already produced, so it is not a behaviour change, and it matches how the repo already works: 17 recipes declare latest and commit a lockfile pinning it. Verified from scratch in both: rm -rf node_modules && npm ci exits 0, and tsc --noEmit exits 0.
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This was referenced Aug 18, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
code-reference-finderandresearch-sentrywere the only two recipes with apackage.jsonand no lockfile. Completes the dependency-hygiene thread from #251 / #253.Why it matters
npm cicannot run in either. No lock, no reproducible install.I checked it wasn't deliberate first
A missing lockfile can be a choice, so before generating anything:
code-reference-finderresearch-sentrypackageManagerfieldyarn.lock/pnpm-lock.yaml/bun.lockb.gitignorenode_modules/node_modulesNo alternative package manager, nothing ignoring locks, and the other 30 recipes all commit one. It reads as an oversight.
The change
npm install --package-lock-onlyin each. No source changes, nopackage.jsonchanges — the diff is two new files.lockfileVersion: 3in both, matching all 32 existing lockfiles.On pinning
"@tiny-fish/sdk": "latest"Both recipes declare the SDK as
latest, and a lockfile freezes it — here to 0.4.1. Worth flagging explicitly, but it isn't a behaviour change: with no lockfile they were already installing whateverlatestresolved to, which is 0.4.1 today. And it matches existing practice — 17 recipes already declarelatestwhile committing a lock that pins it:Renovate is already configured here, so bumps stay managed the same way they are for every other recipe.
Verification
npm ciexits 0 andtsc --noEmitexits 0 in both, from a clean tree.Two things I noticed while in here
1.
code-reference-finderhas broken lint — an 8th case for #248. Next 16.1.6 with"lint": "next lint", and noeslint.config.*, noeslintand noeslint-config-next:Same shape as
fast-qain #258. I've left it out of this PR — adding ESLint means ~370 more lock entries, which would swamp a two-file change. Reported on #248.research-sentryhas nolintscript at all, so there's nothing to break there.2. Unrelated but reassuring for #244. These two now pin SDK 0.4.1, while the recipes with older locks sit on 0.0.7–0.0.11. I diffed the event contract across that range and it's unchanged —
EventTypeis stillSTARTED | STREAMING_URL | PROGRESS | HEARTBEAT | COMPLETE,RunStatusstillPENDING | RUNNING | COMPLETED | FAILED | CANCELLED, and the field names are stillstreaming_url,purpose,run_id,result,error. So the whitelist in #244's checker holds across every SDK version currently in the repo, not just the one I originally read it from.Independent of every other open PR; touches only these two new files.