chore(scripts): update license check to be more flexible @W-19066903#5422
Merged
chore(scripts): update license check to be more flexible @W-19066903#5422
Conversation
@parse5/tools moved from root to template-compiler and there's additional ESM vs CJS nonsense to deal with
Contributor
|
👍 |
wjhsf
changed the title
jhefferman-sfdc
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2025
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Details
#5421 updates
@parse5/tools, and for some reason that makes the dependency move from rootnode_modulestopackages/@lwc/template-compiler/node_modules. The license check script assumed everything was in root, so it broke. This PR makes it more flexible.I also changed from CJS to ESM to leverage
import.meta.resolve, but the git diff is skewed because of the rename from.jsto.mjs. View by commit if you care to see the actual changes.Does this pull request introduce a breaking change?
Does this pull request introduce an observable change?
GUS work item