Skip to content

chore: pin eslint-plugin-diff to workaround git ref issue - #16049

Merged
daschuer merged 1 commit into
mixxxdj:2.5from
acolombier:chore/pin-eslint-plugin-diff
Mar 1, 2026
Merged

chore: pin eslint-plugin-diff to workaround git ref issue#16049
daschuer merged 1 commit into
mixxxdj:2.5from
acolombier:chore/pin-eslint-plugin-diff

Conversation

@acolombier

@acolombier acolombier commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fix an issue where the remote ref is wrongly assumed to always be the PR base, instead of pre-commit from arg, regression introduce by eslint-plugin-diff@v2.1.1 (see paleite/eslint-plugin-diff@e1fd847)

@github-actions github-actions Bot added code quality developer experience Issues, bugs and PRs related to the development process, development environment & developer docs labels Feb 26, 2026
@acolombier acolombier mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2026
@daschuer

daschuer commented Feb 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Is there an upstream bug report for this?

@acolombier

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I couldn't see one yet. Do you want to create one? Are you happy to merge this in the interim to unblock #16037 ?

@ronso0 ronso0 mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2026
@daschuer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Could you file this issue? I am not so into it to put a good description.

Comment thread .pre-commit-config.yaml Outdated
@acolombier
acolombier force-pushed the chore/pin-eslint-plugin-diff branch from 04d231d to 81310fc Compare March 1, 2026 13:02
@acolombier
acolombier force-pushed the chore/pin-eslint-plugin-diff branch from 81310fc to b0eae7c Compare March 1, 2026 13:04
@acolombier
acolombier requested a review from daschuer March 1, 2026 13:05

@daschuer daschuer left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, Thank you for the additional documentation. I will merge this to unblock the depending PR.

It looks like this is an intended change form upstream. The situation that we are cut off from updates is not so good. Do we have a plan to change that?

@daschuer
daschuer merged commit 063fcee into mixxxdj:2.5 Mar 1, 2026
15 checks passed
@acolombier

acolombier commented Mar 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Good question. Quite frankly, I cannot tell. I guess the easy option would be to add a git fetch in the pipeline to make it work as they intend it to, not like pre-commit does.

One issue we have to work with is that pre-commit isn't really the leading linter for git pre commit checks and thus it is unlikely they have or would consider its behaviour. One question becomes what side effect are to be expected (e.g running locally, falling back to origin/main is just wrong as for most of us, it should at least fallback to upstream/main)

Not entirely sure what is the best option, probably trying to see if they would consider keeping this behaviour as opt out could be good?

@daschuer

daschuer commented Mar 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yes. At least they should understand our issue.

@acolombier

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Ah I didn't realise we were passing the branch explicitly in the pipeline: 8a9b040
We need to test if we can pass HEAD^1

@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this to Done in Releases Mar 5, 2026
@acolombier acolombier added this to the 2.5.5 milestone Mar 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

code quality developer experience Issues, bugs and PRs related to the development process, development environment & developer docs

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants