chore: relax Node.js version to 20+#17
Conversation
This is a more conservative choice and follows what Playwright folks do for their userbase.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a8563ba856
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
aslushnikov
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: bc2ef8cd4a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| ## Prerequisites | ||
|
|
||
| - Node.js 22+ | ||
| - Node.js 18+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Contributors who follow this prerequisite on Node 18 will hit a broken setup: this commit raises package.json to engines.node: ^20.17.0 || >=22.9.0, so the documented pnpm install step can fail under common engine enforcement settings (and the resolved runtime dependency which@6.0.1 has the same floor). The contributing guide should not advertise a version range that the repo itself no longer supports.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8784f8abc0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "license": "MIT", | ||
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22" | ||
| "node": "^20.17.0 || >=22.9.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
engines until the CJS entry works
This newly advertises ^20.17.0 as a supported runtime, but the package still exposes require conditions that point at ESM files (package.json:10-18 under "type": "module"). In Node 20.17/20.18, require('@flakiness/sdk') or require('@flakiness/sdk/browser') will still throw ERR_REQUIRE_ESM, so CommonJS consumers in the newly supported 20.x range can install a package that they cannot actually import.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
This is a more conservative choice that comes from the usage of
whichpackage (engine: ^20.17.0 || >=22.9.0).