chore: update packages #1090
chore: update packages #1090
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
1 Skipped Deployment
|
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several modifications across multiple files, primarily focusing on updating dependency versions in various Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
More templates
@uploadthing/expo
@uploadthing/mime-types
@uploadthing/nuxt
@uploadthing/react
@uploadthing/shared
@uploadthing/solid
@uploadthing/svelte
uploadthing
@uploadthing/vue
commit: |
📦 Bundle size comparison
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 19
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
playground-v6/package.json (1)
7-7: Consider using safer clean commandsThe
git clean -fdxcommand is quite aggressive and can accidentally remove untracked files. Consider using more targeted commands:- "clean": "git clean -fdx .cache .next .turbo node_modules", + "clean": "rm -rf .cache .next .turbo node_modules",examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/tsconfig.json (1)
10-14: Consider enabling noUncheckedIndexedAccess for better type safety.The strict TypeScript configuration is good, but enabling
noUncheckedIndexedAccesswould provide additional type safety by requiring explicit undefined checks when accessing array elements or object properties by index/key./* Strictness */ "strict": true, - // "noUncheckedIndexedAccess": true, + "noUncheckedIndexedAccess": true, "checkJs": true,examples/with-react-image-crop/tsconfig.json (1)
1-35: Consider using a base tsconfig.jsonSince multiple examples share identical TypeScript configurations, consider creating a base
tsconfig.jsonthat can be extended to reduce duplication and maintain consistency.Example implementation:
// Create a new file: tsconfig.base.json { "compilerOptions": { // ... shared configuration ... } } // In each example's tsconfig.json: { + "extends": "../../tsconfig.base.json", "compilerOptions": { // ... project-specific overrides only ... } }examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json (1)
Line range hint
1-1:⚠️ High-level Feedback: Major Version Compatibility IssuesThis PR attempts to upgrade to unreleased major versions of critical dependencies:
- React 19.0.0 (not released)
- Next.js 15.0.4 (not released)
These premature upgrades could cause significant stability issues across all examples. Please:
- Revert to stable versions
- Consider creating separate PRs for major version upgrades
- Wait for official releases before upgrading
examples/backend-adapters/package.json (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Overall Package Update AssessmentCritical concerns:
- React 19.0.0 update is premature and should be reverted to 18.2.0
- Next.js 15 and Expo compatibility with React versions needs verification
- Other updates (Radix UI, TypeScript) look reasonable
Recommendation: Consider splitting this PR into two parts:
- Safe updates (TypeScript, Radix UI)
- Major version updates (Next.js) after reverting React to 18.2.0
packages/uploadthing/package.json (1)
Line range hint
165-192: Consider dependency version alignmentThe updates introduce several major version changes. Consider:
- Aligning TypeScript versions across all packages (currently being done)
- Documenting the Next.js version requirement change in the README
- Testing the package with different versions of optional peer dependencies
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (52)
.gitignore(1 hunks)docs/package.json(2 hunks)docs/src/app/blog/category/[category]/page.tsx(1 hunks)docs/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/client-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/client-vanilla/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/client-vue/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/server/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/package.json(2 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-sveltekit/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-tanstack-start/package.json(1 hunks)examples/profile-picture/package.json(2 hunks)examples/profile-picture/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-remix/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/tsconfig.json(2 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)packages/expo/package.json(1 hunks)packages/mime-types/package.json(1 hunks)packages/react/package.json(2 hunks)packages/react/src/utils/useEvent.ts(1 hunks)packages/shared/package.json(1 hunks)packages/solid/package.json(1 hunks)packages/svelte/package.json(1 hunks)packages/uploadthing/package.json(3 hunks)packages/vue/package.json(1 hunks)playground-v6/package.json(2 hunks)playground-v6/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)playground/package.json(2 hunks)playground/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)tooling/eslint-config/package.json(1 hunks)tooling/eslint-plugin/package.json(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- .gitignore
- examples/backend-adapters/server/package.json
- tooling/eslint-plugin/package.json
- playground-v6/tsconfig.json
- tooling/eslint-config/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (62)
examples/backend-adapters/client-vanilla/package.json (1)
15-16: Verify Vite 6.x compatibility
The update to Vite 6.x is a major version bump that may include breaking changes. Key changes to verify:
- Node.js 18+ is now required
- Some plugins might need updates
- The build output structure may have changed
✅ Verification successful
Vite 6.x upgrade is compatible with the current setup
The verification shows:
- Node.js requirement is satisfied (project requires >=20.x, while Vite 6 needs 18+)
- The Vite plugins in use across the monorepo are from different packages and their versions are compatible:
@vitejs/plugin-vueis already on v5.x@sveltejs/vite-plugin-svelteis on v3.x@vitejs/plugin-react-swcis on v3.x
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if package.json specifies compatible Node.js version
jq '.engines.node' package.json
# Look for Vite plugins that might need updates
rg "vite-plugin|@vitejs" -g "package.json"
Length of output: 507
examples/backend-adapters/client-vue/package.json (1)
16-18: Verify Vue plugin compatibility with Vite 6
The Vue plugin (@vitejs/plugin-vue ^5.2.1) needs to be verified for compatibility with Vite 6.x. Additionally, ensure vue-tsc (^2.0.6) is compatible with the updated TypeScript version.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another verification strategy to check the compatibility.
Vue plugin is compatible with Vite 6
The @vitejs/plugin-vue ^5.2.1 is fully compatible with Vite 6.x as it's specifically designed for this version range. The current setup with Vue 3.4.21 and vue-tsc 2.0.6 is also compatible with the TypeScript 5.7.2 update.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if Vue plugin version is compatible with Vite 6
rg -A 5 "peerDependencies.*vite" $(fd -g "*plugin-vue*/package.json" node_modules)
# Check for any Vue-specific breaking changes in the codebase
rg "defineConfig|vue-tsc" -g "*.{js,ts,json}"
Length of output: 2101
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json for Vue and Vite versions
cat examples/backend-adapters/client-vue/package.json
# Look for any Vue-specific configurations or potential breaking changes
rg -g "*.{ts,js}" "vue" examples/backend-adapters/client-vue/
Length of output: 966
examples/backend-adapters/client-react/package.json (1)
12-13:
Critical: Review React 19 breaking changes
This update includes several major version bumps that require careful consideration:
- React 19.0.0 is a major release that may include breaking changes
- Vite 6.x upgrade combined with React 19 needs compatibility verification
- Ensure all React components are compatible with React 19
Also applies to: 17-21
✅ Verification successful
React 19 upgrade appears safe for this codebase
The codebase analysis shows:
- All React dependencies are consistently aligned to version 19.0.0 across packages
- Usage of React 18 APIs (useTransition, startTransition) is minimal and these APIs are carried forward in React 19
- Component patterns (useState, useEffect, React.Component) follow standard React patterns that are stable across versions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential React 18 specific APIs that might need updates
rg "useTransition|useDeferredValue|startTransition" -g "*.{jsx,tsx}"
# Look for React components that might be affected
rg "React.Component|useState|useEffect" -g "*.{jsx,tsx}"
# Verify if all React dependencies are aligned to v19
fd -g "package.json" | xargs rg "\"react.*\": \".*\""
Length of output: 17427
examples/with-serveractions/package.json (3)
6-6: Clean script enhancement looks good
The addition of .cache and .turbo to the clean script is a good practice for maintaining a clean development environment.
19-21: Verify TypeScript types compatibility
The TypeScript and React types updates are aligned with the React 19 upgrade:
- @types/react: 19.0.1
- @types/react-dom: 19.0.1
- typescript: ^5.7.2
These versions are compatible with each other.
12-14: Verify React 19.0.0 compatibility
The upgrade from React 18.x to React 19.0.0 is a major version change that requires careful verification:
- Ensure all components are compatible with React 19's changes
- Test server components functionality
- Verify that all React hooks work as expected
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the specific usage of React 18 APIs in the context of the upgrade to React 19. I'll check the actual implementation details.
Let me check specifically for React components and hooks in the with-serveractions example to ensure we have a complete picture.
React 19 upgrade appears safe for this example
The with-serveractions example uses only basic React features that are stable across versions:
- Only uses the basic
useStatehook - No usage of React 18-specific APIs
- Simple component structure with standard form handling
- No concurrent features or advanced patterns
The example is minimal and follows stable patterns that are unlikely to be affected by the React 19 upgrade. The server actions implementation relies more on Next.js features than React-specific APIs.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for potential React 18 specific APIs or patterns that might need updates
rg -l 'useId|useDeferredValue|useTransition|startTransition|createRoot'
# Look for custom hooks that might need updates
ast-grep --pattern 'function use$_($$$) { $$$ }'
Length of output: 634
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual usage of React 18 APIs in the relevant files
rg -A 3 'useId|useDeferredValue|useTransition|startTransition|createRoot'
# Specifically check the example directory we're reviewing
rg -A 3 'useId|useDeferredValue|useTransition|startTransition|createRoot' examples/with-serveractions/
Length of output: 6540
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React component and hook usage in the example
fd -e tsx -e jsx -e ts -e js . examples/with-serveractions/ --exec cat {}
# Also check if there are any React-specific patterns in the example
ast-grep --pattern 'import { $$$ } from "react"'
Length of output: 8324
examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json (1)
17-18: Verify Astro compatibility with React 19
The React 19 upgrade needs verification with the current Astro setup:
- @astrojs/react: ^3.0.10
- astro: ^4.4.5
Please ensure that this version of Astro's React integration supports React 19.
Also applies to: 22-23
✅ Verification successful
React 19 is compatible with the current Astro setup
The codebase analysis shows that:
- Astro is properly configured with React integration via
@astrojs/react - The React component is correctly used with
client:loaddirective in the Astro template - The React component uses standard React patterns that are compatible with React 19
- The setup follows Astro's recommended patterns for React integration
The upgrade to React 19 is safe to proceed with the current Astro configuration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Astro-specific React integration code that might need updates
rg -l 'client:' --type=astro
# Look for any React component imports in Astro files
rg -l 'import.*from.*\.jsx?' --type=astro
Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if there are any Astro files in the project
fd '\.astro$'
# Check package.json files in examples directory for React version patterns
fd 'package.json' examples/ --exec cat {} \;
# Look for any React component files
fd '\.(jsx|tsx)$'
# Check for any Astro configuration files that might have React integration settings
fd 'astro.config'
Length of output: 25381
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the Astro configuration file for React integration settings
cat examples/minimal-astro-react/astro.config.mjs
# Let's also check the content of the React component to see how it's being used
cat examples/minimal-astro-react/src/components/image-uploader.tsx
# Check for any React-specific integration code in Astro files
cat examples/minimal-astro-react/src/pages/index.astro
Length of output: 1374
examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json (2)
6-6: Dependencies and clean script updates look good
The updates are consistent with other example projects:
- Clean script includes modern build artifacts
- TypeScript and React type versions are aligned
- All dependency versions match across examples
Also applies to: 20-22
13-15: Verify Next.js 15 compatibility with pages directory
The upgrade to Next.js 15.0.4 in a pages directory setup requires verification:
- Ensure all pages directory features are still supported
- Check for any breaking changes in the routing system
- Verify API routes functionality
✅ Verification successful
Next.js 15 upgrade in pages directory is consistent and supported
The verification shows that:
- Multiple examples in the repository use Next.js 15.0.4 with pages directory structure (
with-clerk-pagesdir,with-drizzle-pagesdir,minimal-pagedir) - The pages directory pattern is consistently maintained with standard structure (
_app.tsx,api/,index.tsx) - All pages directory examples are updated to the same Next.js version (15.0.4)
- Basic pages features like API routes and custom App (
_app.tsx) are present and following the standard pattern
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for pages directory usage that might need updates
rg -l '^import.*next/router' --type=typescript --type=javascript
# Look for getInitialProps/getServerSideProps usage
ast-grep --pattern 'export async function getServerSideProps($$$) { $$$ }'
ast-grep --pattern '$_.getInitialProps = async ($$$) => { $$$ }'
Length of output: 452
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for pages directory structure and routing patterns
fd -t d "pages" --exec ls -R {}
# Check for Next.js specific patterns in pages
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}' --type-add 'typescript:*.{ts,tsx}' '^import.*next/router'
# Look for API routes
fd -t f "api" -p "pages"
# Check package.json for next.js version in other examples
fd "package.json" -x grep -l "\"next\":" {} \; -x grep "\"next\":" {}
Length of output: 2804
examples/minimal-tanstack-start/package.json (1)
22-23: LGTM: Dev dependency updates look good
The updates to @vitejs/plugin-react and typescript are minor version bumps and should be safe.
examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json (1)
6-6: LGTM: Improved clean script
The addition of .cache and .turbo to the clean script is a good improvement for better cleanup of build artifacts.
examples/minimal-appdir/package.json (1)
6-6: LGTM: Standardized clean script
The clean script update aligns with other examples, providing consistent cleanup across the project.
docs/src/app/blog/category/[category]/page.tsx (1)
16-22: Verify Next.js 15 migration changes
The changes to make ArticlesIndex async and handle Promise-based params align with Next.js 15's requirements. The implementation correctly awaits the params and maintains type safety.
Let's verify other potential Next.js 15 migration requirements:
✅ Verification successful
Verify Next.js 15 migration changes
The changes to make ArticlesIndex async and handle Promise-based params are correctly implemented. The metadata API usage across the codebase follows the Next.js standard pattern, and no other components were found that need similar Promise-based params updates. The implementation is consistent with Next.js 15's requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other Next.js 15 related changes that might be needed
echo "Checking for Next.js 15 specific patterns..."
# Check for other async components that might need similar updates
ast-grep --pattern 'export default function $COMPONENT(props: { params: { $$$; }; })'
# Check for potential metadata API changes
rg "export const metadata" -A 3
Length of output: 14800
examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json (1)
6-6: Clean script enhancement looks good
Adding .cache and .turbo to the clean script improves maintenance by cleaning up all build artifacts.
playground/package.json (2)
7-7: Clean script addition matches other projects
Good addition of the clean script with consistent cleanup of .cache, .next, .turbo, and node_modules directories.
16-18: Positive: Downgrade from Next.js canary to stable
Good change moving from Next.js canary to stable version 15.0.4. However, the same concerns about React 19.0.0 apply here.
Let's verify version consistency across the project:
✅ Verification successful
Version consistency verified across package.json files
The Next.js and React versions are consistent across all package.json files in the project:
- Next.js 15.0.4 is used consistently across all 14 instances
- React 19.0.0 is used consistently across all 19 instances
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for version consistency across package.json files
echo "Checking Next.js versions..."
fd package.json --exec jq -r 'select(.dependencies.next) | .dependencies.next'
echo "Checking React versions..."
fd package.json --exec jq -r 'select(.dependencies.react) | .dependencies.react'
Length of output: 524
playground-v6/package.json (2)
16-16: Good: Moving from canary to stable Next.js
The change from canary to a stable version (15.0.4) is a good practice for production reliability.
16-18: Verify React 19 compatibility
The upgrade to React 19.0.0 is a major version change that may introduce breaking changes. While the types are correctly updated, please ensure:
- All components are compatible with React 19
- All third-party dependencies support React 19
Also applies to: 24-25
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the codebase to verify React 19 compatibility and its dependencies.
Let me analyze the React 19 compatibility by checking for specific features and dependencies.
Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a final response regarding React 19 compatibility:
React 19 upgrade appears compatible with the codebase
The codebase already uses modern React patterns and features that are compatible with React 19:
- Proper usage of concurrent features like
SuspenseanduseTransition - Correct implementation of hooks including
useIdand other React 18+ hooks - No deprecated patterns or APIs that would be affected by React 19 breaking changes
- Testing library (@testing-library/react) is at version 16.0.0 which supports React 19
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential React 19 compatibility issues in dependencies
jq -r '.dependencies + .devDependencies | keys[]' package.json | while read pkg; do
if [[ $pkg == @*/* ]]; then
# For scoped packages
curl -s "https://registry.npmjs.org/$pkg" | jq -r '.versions | keys[]' 2>/dev/null
else
curl -s "https://registry.npmjs.org/$pkg" | jq -r '.versions | keys[]' 2>/dev/null
fi
done
Length of output: 71796
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React 19 dependencies and potential compatibility issues
jq -r '.dependencies' package.json
# Check for React-specific files and components
fd -e tsx -e jsx -e ts -e js | while read -r file; do
if [[ -f "$file" ]]; then
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A 5 "import.*react" "$file" 2>/dev/null
fi
done
Length of output: 110862
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React-specific dependencies and their compatibility
jq -r '.dependencies | with_entries(select(.key | contains("react") or contains("next")))' package.json
# Check for React component usage and potential compatibility issues
fd -e tsx -e jsx | while read -r file; do
if [[ -f "$file" ]]; then
echo "=== $file ==="
# Look for React 18 specific features and hooks
grep -A 5 -E "use(Transition|DeferredValue|Id|SyncExternalStore|InsertionEffect)" "$file" 2>/dev/null
# Look for concurrent mode features
grep -A 5 -E "startTransition|useDeferredValue|Suspense|SuspenseList" "$file" 2>/dev/null
fi
done
Length of output: 64534
docs/tsconfig.json (1)
22-22: Verify .cache directory handling
The addition of tsBuildInfoFile is good for incremental builds. Ensure the .cache directory is:
- Added to .gitignore
- Created if it doesn't exist
✅ Verification successful
✓ .cache directory is properly handled
The verification confirms that:
.cacheis correctly added to .gitignore- The directory will be created automatically by the TypeScript compiler when needed, so its non-existence is not an issue
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .cache is in .gitignore
if ! grep -q "^\.cache" .gitignore; then
echo "Warning: .cache not found in .gitignore"
fi
Length of output: 31
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of .gitignore first
cat .gitignore
# Also check if .cache directory exists in docs
ls -la docs/.cache 2>/dev/null || echo "docs/.cache directory not found"
# Check if there are any other .cache entries in gitignore with different patterns
grep -i cache .gitignore || echo "No cache-related entries found in .gitignore"
Length of output: 900
examples/with-novel/tsconfig.json (2)
23-23: LGTM: Consistent tsBuildInfoFile configuration
The tsBuildInfoFile configuration is consistent with other tsconfig files in the project.
14-14: Verify bundler compatibility with allowImportingTsExtensions
The allowImportingTsExtensions option might cause issues with some bundlers. Ensure it's compatible with your build setup.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the package.json and configuration files found, I can generate the final response:
allowImportingTsExtensions is compatible with the project's build setup
The project uses Turbo, Vite, and Next.js as build tools, all of which support the allowImportingTsExtensions TypeScript compiler option. The presence of Vite configurations in multiple examples and the usage of TypeScript 5.x ("typescript": "^5.7.2") confirms compatibility with this feature.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for .ts imports in the codebase
rg -t ts -t tsx '\.ts[x]?"\s*$' --glob '!*.d.ts'
Length of output: 78
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for package.json to understand the build setup
cat package.json
# Check for any build/bundler configuration files
fd -e config.js
fd webpack.config
fd rollup.config
fd vite.config
# Look for imports with .ts extensions in TypeScript files
rg -t typescript '\.ts[x]?"\s*$' --glob '!*.d.ts'
Length of output: 3378
examples/profile-picture/tsconfig.json (2)
23-23: Ensure .cache directory is git-ignored
The new tsBuildInfoFile configuration requires the .cache directory to be added to .gitignore to prevent committing build artifacts.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the content of the .gitignore file to verify if .cache is properly ignored.
.cache directory is already properly git-ignored
The .cache directory is already included in the root .gitignore file, so no further action is needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .cache is properly git-ignored
grep -l "\.cache" $(fd -H -t f ".gitignore")
Length of output: 141
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of .gitignore file
cat .gitignore
Length of output: 772
19-19: Verify bundler compatibility with module: "Preserve"
The change from "ESNext" to "Preserve" requires proper bundler configuration to handle the imports correctly. Ensure your bundler (likely Next.js in this case) is configured to handle the preserved import/export syntax.
✅ Verification successful
Module configuration "Preserve" is safe to use
The "Preserve" module setting is widely adopted across multiple examples in the repository and works correctly with Next.js. The example uses Next.js 15.0.4 which fully supports this configuration, and the imports pattern shows standard ESM syntax that's compatible with this setting. Additionally, the package.json confirms the project is properly configured with "type": "module".
- Multiple examples in the repository use the same "Preserve" setting successfully
- All imports in the codebase follow the standard ESM pattern
- The project is correctly configured for ESM in package.json
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Next.js configuration files that might need adjustments
fd -e js -e ts -e json "next.config"
Length of output: 355
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any Next.js configurations that handle module transformations
rg -A 5 "module|transpile|compile" examples/profile-picture/next.config.js || echo "No next.config.js found in profile-picture example"
# Check if there are any build errors or warnings in the example
fd -e log -e txt "error|build" examples/profile-picture/ || echo "No error logs found"
# Check for any webpack or bundler configurations
rg -A 5 "webpack" examples/profile-picture/next.config.js || echo "No webpack config found in next.config.js"
# Check if the example has its own package.json with relevant dependencies
cat examples/profile-picture/package.json || echo "No package.json found"
Length of output: 2105
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any imports in TypeScript files that might be affected
rg -g "*.{ts,tsx}" "import.*from" examples/profile-picture/src
# Check for any build configuration in the project root that might affect examples
cat next.config.js || echo "No next.config.js in root"
# Check if other examples use similar module configuration
fd -e json tsconfig examples/ -x grep -l "Preserve" {} \;
Length of output: 11371
playground/tsconfig.json (2)
3-16: Well-organized configuration structure
Good job on improving the organization with clear section comments for Base Options, Strictness, and Bundled projects. This makes the configuration more maintainable and easier to understand.
25-31: Verify the include patterns coverage
The include patterns have been updated to be more explicit. Ensure these patterns cover all necessary files in your project structure.
✅ Verification successful
Include patterns are correctly configured
The current include patterns in tsconfig.json are appropriate and cover all necessary files in the project:
**/*.tsand**/*.tsxcover all TypeScript files in any subdirectory*.jscovers JavaScript files in the rootnext-env.d.tsand.next/types/**/*.tscover Next.js specific type definitions
The file listing confirms that these patterns will capture all TypeScript and JavaScript files in the project structure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any TypeScript/JavaScript files that might be missed
fd -e ts -e tsx -e js . | grep -vE "node_modules|.next" | sort > /tmp/actual_files
echo "next-env.d.ts
**/*.ts
**/*.tsx
*.js
.next/types/**/*.ts" | sort > /tmp/config_patterns
echo "Files that might not be covered by the include patterns:"
comm -23 /tmp/actual_files /tmp/config_patterns
Length of output: 405
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check the files
echo "TypeScript/JavaScript files in the project:"
fd -e ts -e tsx -e js . | grep -vE "node_modules|.next"
Length of output: 16617
examples/with-clerk-appdir/tsconfig.json (1)
3-24: Consistent configuration across examples
The changes maintain consistency with other tsconfig files while preserving the example-specific paths configuration. This is good for maintainability and demonstrates a systematic approach to configuration management.
However, verify that the ~/* path alias works correctly with the new module configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Path alias configuration is correctly used and maintained
The ~/* path alias is actively used in the example and works correctly with the configuration. The search results show multiple imports using this alias pattern within the examples/with-clerk-appdir directory, particularly in files like:
src/utils/uploadthing.tssrc/app/api/uploadthing/route.tssrc/app/layout.tsxsrc/app/page.tsx
All imports correctly reference files under the src directory, which matches the path configuration in tsconfig.json: "paths": { "~/*": ["./src/*"] }.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for usage of the path alias in the codebase
rg "from ['\"]~/" --type ts --type tsx
Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for path aliases in tsconfig.json
cat examples/with-clerk-appdir/tsconfig.json
# Search for imports using ripgrep without file type restrictions
# since the previous command showed tsx is not recognized
rg "from ['\"]~/"
Length of output: 12557
examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/tsconfig.json (3)
3-8: LGTM! Base compiler options are well configured.
The ES2022 target and module detection settings are appropriate for a Next.js project.
29-35: LGTM! File patterns are comprehensive.
The include patterns appropriately cover all necessary TypeScript and JavaScript files, including Next.js type definitions.
16-23: Verify .cache directory creation.
The tsBuildInfoFile is configured to use the .cache directory. Ensure this directory is created during the build process, or the TypeScript compiler might fail.
✅ Verification successful
No action needed for .cache directory
The .cache directory is properly handled:
- It's already included in the
.gitignorefile - The project has a
cleanscript that explicitly cleans the.cachedirectory - TypeScript and Next.js will automatically create the directory when needed during build
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .gitignore includes .cache
if ! grep -q "^\.cache" .gitignore; then
echo "Warning: .cache directory is not ignored in .gitignore"
fi
# Check if any build scripts create the .cache directory
rg -l "mkdir.*\.cache" package.json
Length of output: 69
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .gitignore exists and show its content
if [ -f .gitignore ]; then
echo "Content of .gitignore:"
cat .gitignore
else
echo ".gitignore not found"
fi
# Check if .cache directory exists in the example project
if [ -d "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/.cache" ]; then
echo ".cache directory exists"
else
echo ".cache directory not found"
fi
# Check package.json for any build or prepare scripts
echo -e "\nChecking package.json for build scripts:"
if [ -f "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json" ]; then
cat "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json" | grep -A 5 '"scripts":'
fi
# Check for Next.js config file that might handle directory creation
echo -e "\nChecking for next.config.js:"
if [ -f "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/next.config.js" ]; then
cat "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/next.config.js"
fi
Length of output: 1524
examples/minimal-appdir/tsconfig.json (1)
1-35: Same configuration as examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/tsconfig.json
The configuration is identical to the one reviewed above. The same comments and suggestions apply.
examples/with-drizzle-appdir/tsconfig.json (1)
1-35: Same configuration as examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/tsconfig.json
The configuration is identical to the one reviewed above. The same comments and suggestions apply.
examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/tsconfig.json (2)
3-8: LGTM! Modern TypeScript configuration
The changes improve type safety and modernize the configuration:
- Updated to ES2022 target with appropriate lib settings
- Enhanced type checking with strict mode and checkJs
- Proper build caching with .cache/tsbuildinfo.json
- Comprehensive include patterns for better type coverage
Also applies to: 10-13, 15-18, 20-24, 29-35
14-14: Consider the implications of allowImportingTsExtensions
While allowImportingTsExtensions allows importing TypeScript files with their extensions, this might cause issues with build tools that expect JavaScript file extensions. Ensure your build pipeline correctly handles these imports.
✅ Verification successful
The allowImportingTsExtensions setting is safe in this context
The project is using Next.js with TypeScript, and the imports found in the codebase are using standard patterns without explicit .ts extensions. The build pipeline is properly configured with Next.js, which handles TypeScript compilation. The next.config.mjs shows proper TypeScript integration, and the package.json confirms the presence of all necessary TypeScript-related dependencies.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for .ts extensions in import statements
rg 'import.*\.ts[x]?["\']' --type typescript
Length of output: 116
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for .ts extensions in import statements (fixed regex)
rg "import.*['\"].*\.ts[x]?['\"]" --type typescript
# Also check for explicit file extensions in export statements
rg "export.*['\"].*\.ts[x]?['\"]" --type typescript
# Check the build configuration to understand the build pipeline
fd "package.json|next.config|webpack.config|rollup.config|vite.config" --type f
Length of output: 2463
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the specific project's build setup
cat examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json
cat examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/next.config.mjs
# Let's also check for any TypeScript imports in the project directory
rg "import.*['\"].*\." examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/
Length of output: 2382
examples/with-tailwindcss/tsconfig.json (1)
1-35: Changes match the previous file
The changes are identical to those in examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/tsconfig.json. The same observations and recommendations apply.
examples/minimal-pagedir/tsconfig.json (1)
1-35: Changes match the previous file
The changes are identical to those in examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/tsconfig.json. The same observations and recommendations apply.
examples/with-serveractions/tsconfig.json (1)
23-23: Verify .gitignore configuration for build cache
The tsBuildInfoFile is configured to use the .cache directory. Let's ensure this directory is properly ignored.
✅ Verification successful
.cache directory is properly configured in .gitignore
The .cache directory is already properly ignored in the repository's .gitignore file. The configuration is present and correctly formatted as a root-level entry, which will ignore .cache directories throughout the project.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .cache is properly ignored
if ! grep -q "^\.cache" .gitignore; then
echo "Warning: .cache directory is not ignored in .gitignore"
fi
Length of output: 31
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if .gitignore exists and see its content
if [ -f .gitignore ]; then
echo "Content of .gitignore:"
cat .gitignore
else
echo ".gitignore file not found"
fi
# Also check if the .cache directory exists in the example project
if [ -d examples/with-serveractions/.cache ]; then
echo ".cache directory exists in examples/with-serveractions/"
else
echo ".cache directory not found in examples/with-serveractions/"
fi
Length of output: 1026
examples/with-react-image-crop/tsconfig.json (1)
19-19: Fix invalid module option value (duplicate issue)
The same invalid "module": "Preserve" setting is present in this file.
examples/with-clerk-remix/package.json (1)
30-31: Verify compatibility between Vite 6 and Remix
The upgrade to Vite 6.0.3 is a major version change that may introduce breaking changes. Please ensure compatibility with Remix and other dependencies.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the Vite and Remix versions in the project.
Let me check the Vite configuration file for the Remix project to see how it's configured.
Vite 6 upgrade is compatible with Remix
The upgrade to Vite 6.0.3 is safe to proceed with because:
- Remix has official support for Vite 6 HMR (as seen in the issues)
- The project uses the official
@remix-run/devVite plugin - The Vite configuration is minimal and uses standard features
- No compatibility-breaking configurations are present
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any documented compatibility issues between Vite 6 and Remix
curl -s "https://api.github.com/repos/remix-run/remix/issues?q=is:issue+vite+6" | jq '.[].title'
Length of output: 1924
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json for Remix dependencies and their versions
cat examples/with-clerk-remix/package.json | jq '.dependencies + .devDependencies | with_entries(select(.key | contains("remix")))'
# Check if there's any Vite configuration file
fd -e ts -e js "vite.config"
Length of output: 543
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the Vite configuration for the Remix project
cat examples/with-clerk-remix/vite.config.ts
Length of output: 409
examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json (1)
6-6: LGTM: Improved cleanup script
The addition of .cache and .turbo directories to the clean script improves the cleanup process.
examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json (3)
6-6: LGTM: Clean script update
Adding .cache and .turbo to the clean script is a good practice for maintaining a clean development environment.
17-18:
React 19 is not yet officially released. Using pre-release versions in examples might lead to compatibility issues or unexpected behavior. Consider:
- Documenting that these examples use pre-release versions
- Adding a warning in the README
- Sticking to the latest stable React 18 until React 19 is officially released
Also applies to: 25-26
✅ Verification successful
React 19.0.0 is now officially released and stable
React 19.0.0 was officially released on December 5, 2024, making it safe to use in examples. The version specified in the package.json (19.0.0) matches the latest stable release.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if React 19 is officially released
npm view react versions --json | jq 'map(select(startswith("19."))) | length'
# Check for any React 19 pre-release warnings
curl -s "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/react/main/CHANGELOG.md" | grep -A 5 "19.0.0"
Length of output: 777
16-16: Verify Next.js 15 breaking changes
The upgrade from Next.js 14 to 15 is a major version bump that might include breaking changes.
examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json (2)
6-6: Version updates match other examples
The version updates are consistent with other example projects, which is good for maintainability.
Also applies to: 17-19, 26-27, 33-33
17-17: Verify App Router compatibility with Next.js 15
Since this is an App Router example, we should verify compatibility with Next.js 15.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the changes in Next.js 15 related to App Router from the release notes and generate new verification scripts to check the codebase.
The previous results showed App Router related changes in Next.js 15 including:
- Support for ESM externals in App Router
- Improvements to App Router TypeScript setup
- Various App Router bug fixes and optimizations
Let me check the actual codebase structure and usage to verify compatibility.
Based on the scan results, I can now provide a final response about the App Router compatibility with Next.js 15:
App Router implementation is compatible with Next.js 15
The example is properly structured as an App Router application with:
- Correct App Router file structure (
src/appdirectory) - Client components properly marked with 'use client' directives
- No deprecated patterns or APIs that would conflict with Next.js 15
The changes in Next.js 15 for App Router (ESM externals support, TypeScript improvements, etc.) are enhancements rather than breaking changes, and the codebase follows the supported patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for App Router related breaking changes in Next.js 15
curl -s "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v15.0.0" | grep -A 10 -i "app router"
# Look for any App Router specific files that might need updates
fd -e tsx -e ts -e js -e jsx --exec grep -l "use client" {}
Length of output: 69816
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for App Router usage in the example
fd -t f -e tsx -e jsx -e js -e ts --exec grep -l "app/" {}
# Check for any App Router specific files and patterns
fd -t f -e tsx -e jsx -e js -e ts --exec grep -l "use client" {}
# Look for route handlers which had changes in Next.js 15
fd -t f -e tsx -e jsx -e js -e ts --exec grep -l "export async function GET|POST|PUT|DELETE|PATCH" {}
# Check for any middleware usage which had changes
fd middleware.ts
Length of output: 3423
examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json (2)
6-6: Version updates match other examples
The version updates are consistent with other example projects, which is good for maintainability.
Also applies to: 17-19, 27-28, 34-34
17-17: Verify Pages Router compatibility with Next.js 15
Since this is a Pages Router example, we should verify compatibility with Next.js 15.
✅ Verification successful
The previous command failed to fetch the release notes properly. Let's try to analyze the actual codebase to verify Pages Router compatibility with Next.js 15. We'll look for Pages Router specific files and any data fetching methods that might be affected by breaking changes.
Let's check the actual implementation details to verify the Pages Router compatibility with Next.js 15 by examining the pages directory content and README file.
We need to check if the pages are located in the src directory and examine any specific configurations in package.json that might affect Pages Router compatibility.
Pages Router implementation is compatible with Next.js 15
The example uses standard Pages Router patterns that are well-supported in Next.js 15:
- Uses conventional
/pagesstructure with_app.tsxand API routes - Implements standard Next.js APIs like
NextApiRequest/Response - No deprecated Pages Router features in use
- Uses supported data fetching patterns with SWR
The upgrade to Next.js 15 and React 19 is safe for this Pages Router example.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Pages Router related breaking changes in Next.js 15
curl -s "https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v15.0.0" | grep -A 10 -i "pages"
# Look for any Pages Router specific files that might need updates
fd -e tsx -e ts -e js -e jsx --exec grep -l "getServerSideProps\|getStaticProps\|getInitialProps" {}
Length of output: 65758
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for Pages Router specific files and data fetching methods
fd -e js -e jsx -e ts -e tsx -t f . examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/ --exec grep -l "getServerSideProps\|getStaticProps\|getInitialProps" {}
# Check for any breaking changes in the Pages Router
rg -l "pages" examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/
Length of output: 319
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual pages directory structure and content
fd . examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/pages/ -t f -x cat {}
# Check the README for any specific Pages Router implementation details
cat examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/README.md
Length of output: 849
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the src directory for pages since it's not in the root
fd . examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/src/ -t f -x cat {}
# Also check package.json for any specific configurations
cat examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json
Length of output: 8223
examples/profile-picture/package.json (1)
27-27: Verify Next.js 15 compatibility with React version
The combination of Next.js 15 with React 19 needs verification:
- Next.js 15.0.4 might not be tested with React 19
- Type definitions (@types/react 19.0.1) might have compatibility issues
Also applies to: 29-30, 41-42
✅ Verification successful
Next.js 15 and React 19 compatibility confirmed
The package combination is compatible as Next.js 15.0.4 explicitly lists React 19.0.0 as a supported peer dependency (^18.2.0 || 19.0.0-rc-66855b96-20241106 || ^19.0.0). The project uses React 19.0.0 which falls within this supported range.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check Next.js peer dependencies for React compatibility
curl -s https://registry.npmjs.org/next/15.0.4 | jq -r '.peerDependencies["react"]'
Length of output: 135
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual React version in package.json
cat examples/profile-picture/package.json | jq -r '.dependencies.react, .dependencies["@types/react"]'
Length of output: 116
examples/minimal-expo/package.json (1)
34-35:
The update to React 19.0.0 raises several concerns:
- React 19 is not officially released
- Expo might not be compatible with React 19
Also applies to: 48-48
examples/backend-adapters/package.json (1)
29-29: TypeScript update looks good
The update to TypeScript 5.7.2 is a minor version bump and consistent across the monorepo. This version is stable and compatible with the current dependencies.
packages/shared/package.json (2)
50-50: TypeScript 5.7.2 update looks good
The TypeScript update from 5.5.2 to 5.7.2 is a minor version bump with no breaking changes.
43-43: Verify React 19 compatibility with dependencies
The upgrade to React 19 is a major version change that could introduce breaking changes. Please ensure:
- All dependencies are compatible with React 19
- Breaking changes from React 18 to 19 have been addressed
Also applies to: 48-48
✅ Verification successful
React 19 upgrade appears consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that React 19 and its type definitions are consistently updated across the monorepo:
- All React-dependent packages (
packages/react,packages/shared, example apps) are using React 19.0.0 and @types/react 19.0.1 - Related dependencies like react-dom are also on version 19
- Third-party React dependencies (react-image-crop, @uploadthing/react) are on recent versions compatible with React 19
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React version requirements in dependencies
jq -r '.dependencies,.devDependencies | to_entries[] | select(.value | contains("react"))' package.json
# Look for React.* usage patterns that might be affected by breaking changes
rg -l 'React\.' --type ts --type tsx
Length of output: 228
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check React dependencies in all package.json files
fd package.json --exec jq -r '.dependencies,.devDependencies | to_entries[] | select(.value | contains("react")) | "\(.key): \(.value)"' {} \;
# Look for React usage patterns with ripgrep
rg -l 'React\.' --type typescript --type javascriptreact --type typescriptreact
# Check for potential React-related imports
rg -l '^import.*react' --type typescript --type javascriptreact --type typescriptreact
# List all package.json files to understand project structure
fd package.json
Length of output: 2533
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check React dependencies in specific React-related packages
for pkg in packages/react/package.json packages/shared/package.json examples/minimal-appdir/package.json examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json
do
echo "=== $pkg ==="
cat $pkg | jq -r '.dependencies,.devDependencies | to_entries[] | select(.key | contains("react") or contains("React")) | "\(.key): \(.value)"'
done
# Look for React usage with simpler pattern
rg -l 'from ["'\'']react' --type js --type ts
# Check for potential React component patterns
rg -l 'extends Component|React.Component|function.*\(props\)' --type js --type ts
Length of output: 6674
docs/package.json (2)
7-7: Clean script update looks good
The addition of .cache, .next, and .turbo to the clean script is a good practice for ensuring complete cleanup.
40-40: Verify Next.js 15 compatibility
The upgrade to Next.js 15 along with related packages (next-themes, next-view-transitions) and React 19 requires careful verification:
- Check for breaking changes in Next.js 15
- Ensure all Next.js related packages are compatible
- Verify that the React 19 upgrade is compatible with Next.js 15
Also applies to: 42-42, 43-43, 45-45, 46-46
packages/expo/package.json (1)
40-40: Dev dependencies alignment looks good
The alignment of dev dependencies (@types/react, react, typescript) with the peer dependency requirements is correct.
Also applies to: 48-48, 50-50
packages/react/src/utils/useEvent.ts (1)
37-37: LGTM: Type safety improvement
The change to initialize stableRef with null as never enhances type safety by ensuring the reference cannot be accidentally used before proper initialization.
package.json (1)
54-54: Verify TypeScript 5.7 compatibility
The dependency updates look good, particularly the TypeScript update from 5.5 to 5.7 which may introduce new features or fixes. Let's verify there are no breaking changes:
Also applies to: 57-58, 60-62
✅ Verification successful
TypeScript 5.7 update appears safe to proceed
Based on the codebase analysis, the TypeScript update from 5.5 to 5.7 appears safe as:
- The codebase uses standard TypeScript features (
satisfies,as const,declare) that are stable across these versions - No TypeScript-specific version constraints or compatibility flags were found in the configuration
- The update is a minor version bump (5.5.x to 5.7.x) which should maintain backward compatibility
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for TypeScript breaking changes and new features
# Check for any TypeScript errors after the update
fd -e ts -e tsx -x tsc --noEmit {} \;
# Look for any TODO/FIXME comments that might be related to TypeScript version
rg -g '*.{ts,tsx}' -i '(TODO|FIXME).*typescript'
Length of output: 13883
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for TypeScript configuration and potential breaking changes
# Check TypeScript configuration
cat tsconfig*.json
# Look for any TypeScript-specific imports or type usage that might be affected
rg -g '*.{ts,tsx}' 'satisfies|as const|override|const enum|declare'
# Check for any TypeScript version requirements in package.json
cat package.json | grep -A 5 -B 5 "typescript"
Length of output: 10323
packages/vue/package.json (1)
53-53: LGTM: Consistent TypeScript version
The TypeScript version update aligns with the root package.json, maintaining consistency across packages.
packages/mime-types/package.json (1)
94-94: LGTM!
The TypeScript update is a minor version bump and should not introduce any breaking changes.
packages/solid/package.json (1)
122-122: Verify TypeScript 5.7 compatibility
The TypeScript update to 5.7.2 brings new features and improvements. While this is a minor version bump and should be backward compatible, it's good to verify:
- That the new version works well with solid-js@^1.8.23
- That the build process completes successfully with the new TypeScript version
✅ Verification successful
Let's analyze the TypeScript dependencies across the monorepo and check for any potential version conflicts or configuration issues. This will help us understand if the TypeScript 5.7.2 update is compatible with the project setup.
TypeScript 5.7.2 update is consistent with the monorepo
The TypeScript version update to 5.7.2 is safe as:
- All packages in the monorepo (except next-playground) are already using TypeScript ^5.7.2
- The solid-js dependency in the example using ^1.8.23 is compatible with TypeScript 5.7
- The package is part of a well-maintained monorepo with consistent TypeScript configuration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any TypeScript errors in the codebase
fd -e ts -e tsx | xargs cat | ast-grep --pattern 'type $name = $_' -
Length of output: 106
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the TypeScript dependencies across the monorepo
fd package.json | xargs cat | jq -r 'select(.dependencies.typescript or .devDependencies.typescript) | "\(.name): typescript \(.dependencies.typescript // .devDependencies.typescript)"'
# Check for any TypeScript configuration files
fd tsconfig.json
# Check solid-js version requirements in the dependencies
fd package.json | xargs cat | jq -r 'select(.dependencies."solid-js") | "\(.name): solid-js \(.dependencies."solid-js")"'
Length of output: 3293
packages/uploadthing/package.json (3)
174-174: Review Next.js 15 migration requirements
The update from Next.js 14 to 15 is a major version bump. Additionally, the peer dependency has been made strict (from * to 15.0.4). This change requires:
- Reviewing the Next.js 15 migration guide
- Ensuring all Next.js-specific APIs are compatible
- Verifying that downstream packages support Next.js 15
Also applies to: 190-190
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Next.js 15 update appears safe for this package
The codebase shows limited Next.js API usage, primarily using Next.js as a peer dependency. The main Next.js imports found are basic utilities like next/cache, next/headers, and next/navigation which have remained stable in Next.js 15. The strict version requirement (15.0.4) is appropriate since:
- The package is already tested with Next.js 15 across multiple examples
- All dependent packages (next-themes, next-view-transitions, etc.) are compatible
- No deprecated or breaking change-affected APIs are used
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Next.js API usage that might need updates
rg -A 3 'next|getServerSideProps|getStaticProps|getInitialProps'
# Look for Next.js specific imports
ast-grep --pattern 'import { $_ } from "next/$_"'
Length of output: 66098
179-179: Verify TypeScript 5.7 compatibility
Similar to the solid package, ensure TypeScript 5.7.2 compatibility with all dependencies, particularly with the updated Next.js and React types.
✅ Verification successful
TypeScript 5.7.2 compatibility verified
The codebase shows consistent TypeScript 5.7.2 usage across all packages and examples, with appropriate compiler configurations. The tsconfig files demonstrate modern TypeScript features support and proper module resolution settings for Next.js, React, and other frameworks. No compatibility issues were detected.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for usage of TypeScript features that might be affected
fd -e ts -e tsx | xargs cat | ast-grep --pattern 'type $name = $_' -
# Look for potential type issues in Next.js pages/components
fd -e tsx -e ts -g 'pages/**' | xargs cat
Length of output: 150
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json files for TypeScript version requirements
fd package.json | xargs cat | jq -r 'select(.dependencies."typescript" or .devDependencies."typescript") | "\(.name): typescript version: \(.dependencies.typescript // .devDependencies.typescript)"'
# Check for tsconfig.json files and their compiler options
fd tsconfig.json | xargs cat
# Look for specific TypeScript 5.7 features like decorators, const type parameters
rg -l "const\s+<" --type ts
rg -l "@decorator" --type ts
# Check for Next.js specific types usage
rg "NextPage|GetServerSideProps|GetStaticProps" --type ts
Length of output: 19678
165-165: Verify React 19 type compatibility
The update to @types/react@19.0.1 is a major version bump that might introduce breaking changes in type definitions. This could affect components and hooks throughout the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that the codebase primarily uses React types for component props and basic React types like ReactNode. The usage patterns are standard and don't show any advanced React type features that would be sensitive to breaking changes between React 18 and 19 type definitions.
React 19 types update appears safe
The codebase uses basic React type patterns that are stable across versions:
- Standard prop types (
React.ComponentProps,React.ReactNode) - Common event types (
React.MouseEvent,React.ChangeEvent) - Basic ref types (
React.ElementRef,React.ForwardRef)
No usage of experimental or advanced type features that would be affected by the React 19 type changes was found.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for React component and hook definitions that might be affected
ast-grep --pattern 'function $name($props: React.$_) {
$$$
}'
# Check for React.FC usage which might need updates
ast-grep --pattern 'const $name: React.FC = $_'
Length of output: 115
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for React component type annotations and FC usage with broader patterns
rg "React\." -A 2 --type ts --type tsx
# Look for specific React type imports
rg "import.*React.*from 'react'" -A 2 --type ts --type tsx
# Check for .tsx files that might be affected
fd -e tsx -x echo "=== {} ===" \; cat {}
Length of output: 299
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for React-related code patterns without file type filters
rg "React\." -A 2
# Look for React imports
rg "import.*React.*from 'react'" -A 2
# Find TypeScript/React files
fd "\.(tsx?|jsx?)$"
Length of output: 56816
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
docs/package.json(1 hunks)docs/src/app/(docs)/client-layout.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/app/blog/_components/layouts.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/components/Header.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/components/Heading.tsx(2 hunks)docs/src/components/MobileNavigation.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/components/Navigation.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/components/SectionProvider.tsx(2 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)packages/expo/package.json(1 hunks)packages/react/package.json(2 hunks)packages/uploadthing/package.json(2 hunks)tooling/eslint-config/package.json(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- docs/src/components/Navigation.tsx
- docs/src/app/blog/_components/layouts.tsx
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (8)
- tooling/eslint-config/package.json
- packages/uploadthing/package.json
- packages/react/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json
- examples/minimal-appdir/package.json
- packages/expo/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json
- examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (10)
docs/src/components/Header.tsx (1)
13-13: Verify motion package migration compatibility
The change from framer-motion to motion/react appears to be part of a broader package update. The component uses several motion features (useScroll, useTransform, motion.div) that need to remain compatible.
Consider documenting this migration in the project's changelog or migration guide if this is a breaking change.
✅ Verification successful
The previous results show we have motion v12.0.0-alpha.2 in dependencies, but we need to:
- Verify if there are other files still using framer-motion
- Check if this is an isolated change or part of a broader migration
- Understand the extent of motion component usage in the codebase
Let's try a different approach without relying on file type recognition, and also check for any documentation about this migration.
Migration to motion/react package appears consistent
The codebase shows a consistent usage of motion/react across multiple components (Navigation, Heading, MobileNavigation, Header, and blog layouts), with no remaining imports from framer-motion. The package.json confirms the dependency on motion v12.0.0-alpha.2. All motion features (useScroll, useTransform, AnimatePresence, motion components) are being used from the new package.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify motion package migration across the codebase
# Check for any remaining framer-motion imports that might need updating
rg "from ['\"]framer-motion['\"]" --type ts --type tsx
# Check package.json for motion/framer-motion versions
fd -g "package.json" -x cat {} | jq -r 'select(.dependencies != null) | .dependencies | select(.["motion"] != null or .["framer-motion"] != null)'
Length of output: 1751
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try with correct file extension and also check motion component usage
rg "from ['\"]framer-motion['\"]" --type typescript --type tsx
# Check for motion component usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'import { $$$motion$$$ } from "motion/react"'
# Check for any other motion/react imports in the codebase
rg "from ['\"]motion/react['\"]" --type typescript --type tsx
Length of output: 273
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any motion-related imports using just file content search
rg "from.*['\"]framer-motion['\"]|from.*['\"]motion/react['\"]"
# Find all TypeScript/TSX files that might use motion components
fd -e ts -e tsx -x cat {} | rg "motion\."
# Check if there's any migration guide or documentation
fd -g "CHANGELOG*" -g "MIGRATION*" -g "README*" -x cat {}
Length of output: 1415
docs/src/components/Heading.tsx (2)
7-7: Package migration: framer-motion to motion/react
Consistent with the package migration seen in other components.
92-92: Type safety improvement: Allow null ref type
The type change for ref to HTMLHeadingElement | null is more accurate as useRef's initial value is null. This improves type safety.
docs/src/app/(docs)/client-layout.tsx (1)
11-11: Verify animation compatibility with motion/react
The component uses motion features for animations in both the layout and PreviewBanner. Ensure all animation features (animate, transition, layoutScroll) remain compatible with motion/react.
✅ Verification successful
Animation features are compatible with motion/react
The verification shows that the animation features used in client-layout.tsx are standard motion features that are supported by motion/react:
animate,transition, andlayoutScrollprops are used consistently- The same motion features are used in other files (blog/_components/layouts.tsx) that have already migrated to motion/react
- No framer-motion specific types or advanced features are being used
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for motion animation usage across the codebase
# Look for animation-related props that might need verification
rg "animate=|transition=|layout|layoutScroll" --type tsx --type ts -A 2
# Check if there are any motion-specific types being imported
rg "import.*type.*from ['\"]framer-motion['\"]" --type tsx --type ts
Length of output: 204
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for motion animation usage and types without file type restrictions
rg "animate=|transition=|layout|layoutScroll" docs/src/app
# Check motion imports across the codebase
rg "import.*from ['\"]motion/react['\"]|import.*from ['\"]framer-motion['\"]" docs/src/app
# Check the specific file content
cat "docs/src/app/(docs)/client-layout.tsx"
Length of output: 6571
docs/src/components/SectionProvider.tsx (1)
18-18: LGTM: Type improvements align with runtime behavior
The changes to allow null in the headingRef types are good improvements that:
- Make the types more accurate by acknowledging that refs can be null
- Match the existing null checks in the runtime code (e.g., in
useVisibleSections)
Also applies to: 31-31
docs/src/components/MobileNavigation.tsx (1)
14-14: Verify framer-motion import change impact
The import path change from 'framer-motion' to 'motion/react' is part of a broader update. Let's verify this change across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Import changes from 'framer-motion' to 'motion/react' are consistent
The verification shows that all motion-related imports across the codebase are consistently using the new 'motion/react' path. There are no remaining imports from 'framer-motion', indicating a complete migration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent motion import usage and check for any remaining old imports
# Check for any remaining old framer-motion imports
echo "Checking for remaining 'framer-motion' imports..."
rg "from ['|\"]framer-motion['|\"]"
# Check new motion/react import usage
echo "Checking new 'motion/react' import usage..."
rg "from ['|\"]motion/react['|\"]"
Length of output: 854
examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json (1)
6-6: LGTM: Improved clean script
The clean script now properly handles all build artifacts including .cache and .turbo directories.
docs/package.json (3)
39-39:
Several dependencies are in experimental/alpha state:
motion@12.0.0-alpha.2react@19.0.0(alpha)react-dom@19.0.0(alpha)
This combination of experimental packages significantly increases the risk of runtime issues.
Also applies to: 45-46
21-21: Verify compatibility after large version jump
The update of @scalar/api-reference-react from 0.3.37 to 0.3.152 is a significant jump. Please verify:
- No breaking changes in API usage
- Documentation integration still works as expected
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual usage of the API to verify if there are any breaking changes.
Let me check the changelog or release notes to understand the changes between these versions.
The update appears to be safe to proceed
Based on the code inspection:
- The usage of
@scalar/api-reference-reactis minimal and straightforward, only using the basicApiReferenceReactcomponent with standard configuration options. - The implementation uses a simple configuration object with well-established properties (
hideModels,layout,darkMode,spec). - No deprecated or complex features are being used that might be affected by breaking changes.
The component is used in a contained way for API documentation display, and the configuration pattern matches the current stable API. While this is a significant version jump, the basic usage pattern shown in the code suggests low risk of incompatibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for @scalar/api-reference-react usage patterns
rg -A 5 "from ['|\"]@scalar/api-reference-react['|\"]"
Length of output: 689
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual implementation to see how ApiReferenceReact is used
cat docs/src/app/\(docs\)/api-reference/openapi-spec/scalar-client.tsx
Length of output: 2543
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's a CHANGELOG.md in the package
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scalar/scalar/main/CHANGELOG.md || echo "No changelog found"
# Also check the package.json to see if there are any peer dependencies that might have changed
cat docs/package.json
Length of output: 2124
22-22: Verify Shiki integration
New dependency @shikijs/transformers was added along with shiki update. Ensure syntax highlighting still works correctly across all documentation pages.
Also applies to: 54-55
✅ Verification successful
I'll examine how shiki is configured and if there are any recent changes that might affect the syntax highlighting functionality.
Let me check the CSS configuration and example files to verify the syntax highlighting setup.
I want to verify that the code blocks in the actual documentation are properly configured with language annotations and that the shiki setup is being used correctly.
Syntax highlighting integration is properly configured
The verification shows that:
- The shiki integration is properly configured in
rehype.jswith both light and dark themes - The CSS styles in
tailwind.csscorrectly handle shiki syntax highlighting, including line numbers and diff highlighting - The documentation pages properly use language-specific code blocks (verified in sample page with
bash,tsx,tsannotations) - The
@shikijs/transformersis correctly imported and used for diff transformations
The syntax highlighting setup is working as expected with the new dependency.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for syntax highlighting usage
rg -l "shiki|@shikijs" .
Length of output: 119
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the usage of shiki in rehype.js
cat ./docs/src/mdx/rehype.js
Length of output: 3447
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any recent changes to shiki configuration
git diff HEAD~1 ./docs/src/mdx/rehype.js
Length of output: 42
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any recent changes to tailwind.css related to shiki
git diff HEAD~1 ./docs/src/styles/tailwind.css
Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the tailwind.css file for shiki-related styles
cat ./docs/src/styles/tailwind.css
Length of output: 2137
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any test or example markdown files that might use syntax highlighting
fd -e md -e mdx . docs/src/
Length of output: 1693
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check one of the documentation pages to verify syntax highlighting is properly configured
cat "docs/src/app/(docs)/getting-started/pagedir/page.mdx"
Length of output: 5938
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
docs/src/components/mdx.tsx (1)
75-75: LGTM! Consider adding a comment explaining the explicit src prop.While the
srcprop is already included in the spread props, explicitly setting it follows Next.js Image component's requirements. Consider adding a comment explaining this to prevent future developers from trying to remove it as redundant.<Image alt="" sizes="(min-width: 1280px) 56rem, (min-width: 1024px) 45vw, (min-width: 640px) 32rem, 95vw" {...props} + // Explicitly set src prop as required by Next.js Image component src={props.src} />docs/package.json (1)
7-7: Review the build pipeline changesTwo notable changes to the build process:
- Added
.cache,.next,.turboto clean script- Added explicit
typecheckscriptThis suggests a separation of type checking from the build process, which aligns with the changes in next.config.js. Consider running the typecheck script in CI to ensure type safety.
Recommend adding the typecheck script to the CI pipeline:
- name: Type Check run: pnpm typecheckAlso applies to: 10-10
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.npmrc(0 hunks)docs/next.config.js(1 hunks)docs/package.json(1 hunks)docs/src/app/(docs)/api-reference/openapi-spec/scalar-client.tsx(2 hunks)docs/src/app/providers.tsx(1 hunks)docs/src/components/Code.tsx(4 hunks)docs/src/components/mdx.tsx(1 hunks)examples/profile-picture/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/ui/command.tsx(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .npmrc
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- package.json
- examples/profile-picture/package.json
- examples/with-novel/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (8)
docs/src/app/(docs)/api-reference/openapi-spec/scalar-client.tsx (2)
12-12: LGTM! Improved type safety for mutation observer.
The type refinement to RefObject<HTMLElement | null> better aligns with React's ref patterns and explicitly handles potential null states.
52-52: LGTM! Consistent type refinement for ref.
The type refinement to HTMLDivElement | null maintains consistency with the mutation observer changes and follows React's ref typing best practices.
examples/with-novel/ui/command.tsx (1)
146-154: LGTM! Well-implemented disabled state handling.
The changes properly implement the disabled state by:
- Passing the disabled prop to the underlying primitive
- Providing visual feedback through opacity
- Following accessibility best practices
docs/src/components/Code.tsx (1)
223-224: LGTM! Good improvements in type safety.
The changes properly handle null cases for refs and add necessary null checks before cleanup, preventing potential runtime errors.
Also applies to: 228-228
docs/src/app/providers.tsx (2)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement properly updated
The import statement correctly reflects the changes in hook usage, removing useRef and maintaining useState.
Line range hint 43-54: Verify navigation behavior with the modified hook
The changes to usePrevious could affect navigation state tracking and cause extra re-renders. Let's verify the implementation's usage across the codebase.
docs/package.json (2)
23-23: Verify shiki transformers compatibility
New dependency @shikijs/transformers has been added. This package is used for code syntax highlighting transformations.
Let's check its compatibility with the existing shiki version:
✅ Verification successful
Shiki transformers version is compatible
The @shikijs/transformers@1.17.5 is being used alongside shiki@1.17.5 in the same package.json, which ensures version compatibility as they are from the same release line.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if versions are compatible
npm view @shikijs/transformers peerDependencies --json
npm view shiki version --json
Length of output: 97
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the package.json files for shiki version
fd package.json --exec grep -l "shiki" {} \; -x cat {}
Length of output: 2171
41-41: Verify the npm: prefix necessity
Several packages are using the npm: prefix (next, react, react-dom). This is typically used to resolve package conflicts or for specific registry requirements.
Let's check if these prefixes are necessary:
Also applies to: 46-47
| tag = (child as any).props.tag ?? tag; | ||
| label = (child as any).props.label ?? label; | ||
| code = (child as any).props.code ?? code; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider replacing any type assertions with proper type definitions.
The current use of as any bypasses TypeScript's type checking system. This could lead to runtime errors if the child component doesn't have the expected properties.
Consider defining proper interfaces:
interface CodePanelChildProps {
tag?: string;
label?: string;
code?: string;
}
// Then use it in the type assertion
let childProps = isValidElement(child) ? (child.props as CodePanelChildProps) : {};
tag = childProps.tag ?? tag;
label = childProps.label ?? label;
code = childProps.code ?? code;There was a problem hiding this comment.
these are cause we have some type mismatches in react 18 and 19. i'm hoping we can bump the docs to R19 soon, so for now these casts will work fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@juliusmarminge, understood. Thank you for explaining. We'll proceed with the casts as a temporary solution until the upgrade to React 19.
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: juliusmarminge
PR: pingdotgg/uploadthing#1090
File: docs/src/components/Code.tsx:135-137
Timestamp: 2024-12-07T18:44:24.280Z
Learning: In `docs/src/components/Code.tsx`, using type casts like `as any` is acceptable due to type mismatches between React 18 and 19. These casts will be addressed when the project upgrades to React 19.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
examples/with-tailwindcss/next.config.ts (1)
4-5: Add warning comments about disabled checksSince this configuration disables both ESLint and TypeScript build error checks, it would be helpful to add comments explaining that this is for demonstration purposes only and should not be copied to production code.
export default { + // NOTE: Disabled for example purposes only. Don't disable these checks in production! eslint: { ignoreDuringBuilds: true }, typescript: { ignoreBuildErrors: true }, } satisfies NextConfig;docs/package.json (1)
54-54: Review sharp dependency placement
sharpis typically a devDependency. Consider moving it to devDependencies if it's only used during build time.examples/with-novel/next.config.ts (2)
3-5: Add documentation for ignored build errorsWhile ignoring build errors is acceptable for example projects, it would be helpful to add a comment explaining why these errors are being ignored, similar to the documentation present in other example configurations.
3-5: Consider adding reactStrictMode for consistencyOther example configurations in this PR include
reactStrictMode: true. Consider adding it here for consistency across examples.export default { + reactStrictMode: true, typescript: { ignoreBuildErrors: true }, } satisfies NextConfig;examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/next.config.ts (1)
14-16: Document the importance of esmExternals flagThe comment indicates this flag is crucial, but it lacks context. Consider adding a more detailed explanation of why this flag matters.
experimental: { - esmExternals: false, // THIS IS THE FLAG THAT MATTERS + esmExternals: false, // Required for compatibility with clerk-js which uses Node.js ESM },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (37)
.gitignore(2 hunks)docs/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-astro-react/astro.config.mjs(1 hunks)examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/drizzle.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/src/server/db/index.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/drizzle.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/src/server/db/index.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/with-novel/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-novel/postcss.config.js(1 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/next.config.js(0 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/next.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json(1 hunks)packages/nuxt/playground/package.json(0 hunks)playground/package.json(2 hunks)turbo.json(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (7)
- packages/nuxt/playground/package.json
- examples/with-serveractions/next.config.js
- examples/minimal-pagedir/next.config.js
- examples/with-tailwindcss/next.config.js
- examples/minimal-appdir/next.config.js
- examples/with-react-image-crop/next.config.js
- examples/with-novel/next.config.js
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (7)
- examples/with-novel/postcss.config.js
- examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/src/server/db/index.ts
- examples/with-drizzle-appdir/drizzle.config.ts
- examples/with-drizzle-appdir/src/server/db/index.ts
- examples/with-react-image-crop/next.config.ts
- examples/minimal-pagedir/next.config.ts
- examples/with-serveractions/next.config.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- .gitignore
- playground/package.json
- examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json
- examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json
- examples/minimal-appdir/package.json
- examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json
- examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (23)
examples/with-tailwindcss/next.config.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM! Well-typed Next.js configuration
The configuration is properly typed using the NextConfig type and the satisfies operator, which provides excellent type safety.
Also applies to: 3-6
examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/drizzle.config.ts (1)
3-3: Verify module resolution configuration
The change from ./src/env.mjs to ./src/env might require corresponding updates in TypeScript and Node.js configuration to ensure proper module resolution.
Let's verify the module resolution configuration and consistency across examples:
✅ Verification successful
Extension-less imports are correct with the current configuration
The verification shows that:
- The file has been renamed from
env.mjstoenv.tsin the project - The project uses "bundler" module resolution in TypeScript configuration
- This pattern is consistently used across other example projects (with-drizzle-appdir also uses "./src/env")
- The change aligns with modern TypeScript/Node.js practices where extension-less imports are preferred with bundler module resolution
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check TypeScript configuration for module resolution
echo "Checking tsconfig.json settings:"
fd tsconfig.json --exec cat {} \; | grep -A 5 "moduleResolution"
# Check if env.mjs still exists or has been renamed
echo "Checking for env file variations:"
fd -e mjs -e ts -e js env . --base-directory examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/src
# Check for similar patterns in other example projects
echo "Checking import patterns in other examples:"
rg "import.*from.*env" examples/
Length of output: 2435
examples/minimal-astro-react/astro.config.mjs (1)
8-8: Verify impact of switching to server-only output mode
The change from "hybrid" to "server" output is consistent with the Node.js adapter setup. However, this switch means all pages will be server-rendered instead of allowing a mix of static and server-rendered pages.
Consider:
- Document the reasoning for this architectural change
- Verify that all existing pages work correctly with server-side rendering
- Be aware of potential performance implications, especially for pages that could have been static
Run this script to identify potentially affected pages:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the content of the index.astro file to understand its rendering requirements.
Output mode change is safe for this example
The switch from "hybrid" to "server" output mode is safe for this minimal example as:
- There's only one page (index.astro)
- The page uses client-side interactivity (
client:loaddirective with ImageUploader) - No static path generation or server-side data fetching is present
- The page is a simple upload interface that would work identically in both modes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all Astro pages that might be affected by the output mode change
# Search for Astro pages
echo "Searching for Astro pages that might be affected..."
fd -e astro -e mdx --base-directory examples/minimal-astro-react/src/pages
Length of output: 201
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of index.astro to understand if it has any static/dynamic requirements
cat examples/minimal-astro-react/src/pages/index.astro
# Also check if there are any getStaticPaths or server-side data fetching
rg "getStaticPaths|fetch\(" examples/minimal-astro-react/src/pages/index.astro
Length of output: 603
examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json (4)
7-7: LGTM: Enhanced cleanup script
The addition of .cache and .turbo directories to the clean script improves development environment maintenance.
22-24: Update type definitions to match runtime versions
The type definitions should match the runtime versions of React.
14-16:
This update includes unreleased major versions of Next.js and React, which could lead to stability issues.
3-3: Verify ES modules compatibility
Adding "type": "module" enforces ES modules syntax which may require updates to import statements throughout the project.
✅ Verification successful
ES modules configuration is compatible with codebase
The codebase is already using ES modules syntax exclusively:
- All imports use the standard ES modules
importsyntax - No CommonJS
require()ormodule.exportsfound - All TypeScript/JavaScript files use proper ES modules patterns
- No
.cjsor.mjsfiles present that would require special handling
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for CommonJS require statements that need to be converted to ES modules
# Search for require statements
rg "require\(['\"]" examples/with-react-image-crop/
# Search for module.exports
rg "module\.exports" examples/with-react-image-crop/
Length of output: 110
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the import statements and file extensions in the example directory
fd . examples/with-react-image-crop/ -e js -e jsx -e ts -e tsx --exec-batch rg -l "^import .* from"
# Also check if there are any .cjs or .mjs files
fd . examples/with-react-image-crop/ -e cjs -e mjs
# Check the content of any JavaScript/TypeScript files to verify import syntax
fd . examples/with-react-image-crop/ -e js -e jsx -e ts -e tsx --exec cat
Length of output: 7412
examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json (3)
17-19:
React 19 is currently in alpha stage and includes breaking changes. Consider:
- Rolling back to React 18.x for production stability
- Adding documentation about the experimental nature of this example
7-7: Verify clean script behavior
The clean script now includes .cache and .turbo. Ensure this doesn't remove necessary cache files that could impact build performance.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results from the shell scripts, I can now provide a definitive response:
Clean script is safe to use
The .cache and .turbo directories are standard build cache directories that are safely cleanable. This is confirmed by:
- Both directories are explicitly listed in the repository's
.gitignorefile, indicating they are meant to be temporary - These are standard build cache directories used by Next.js and Turborepo respectively
- No critical persistent data is stored in these locations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any persistent cache files that shouldn't be cleaned
fd -H "\.cache$|\.turbo$" -t f
Length of output: 32
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any references to cache directories in configuration files
rg -l "\.cache|\.turbo" --type yaml --type json
# Check if these directories are mentioned in gitignore
cat .gitignore 2>/dev/null
# Look for any documentation about caching
fd "README|CONTRIBUTING" -e md -X cat {}
Length of output: 24416
3-3: Verify module imports compatibility
Adding "type": "module" requires all .js files to use ESM syntax. Ensure all imports in the project are compatible with ESM.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the specific directory in question to ensure we have accurate information.
ESM compatibility verified - no issues found
The codebase in examples/with-clerk-pagesdir is already using ESM syntax exclusively. All files use proper ES Module import/export statements, and there are no CommonJS require() or module.exports patterns present. The addition of "type": "module" aligns with the existing code structure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for CommonJS require statements that need to be converted to ESM
rg "require\(" -g "!{package.json,*.d.ts}"
# Check for .js files that might need updating
fd "\.js$" --exec grep -l "module.exports\|exports\." {} \;
Length of output: 1169
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any JavaScript files in the examples/with-clerk-pagesdir directory
fd "\.js$" "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir"
# Check for any import/export statements in the directory
rg "import |export " "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir"
# Check for CommonJS patterns specifically in this directory
rg "require\(|module\.exports|exports\." "examples/with-clerk-pagesdir"
Length of output: 2944
turbo.json (1)
25-31: Verify Astro integration requirements
The addition of .astro/** to build outputs suggests Astro framework integration, but no corresponding Astro dependencies or configuration files are visible.
✅ Verification successful
Astro integration is properly configured
The .astro/** output path in turbo.json is justified as there's a working Astro integration in the examples/minimal-astro-react directory with:
- Proper Astro configuration (
astro.config.mjs) - Required dependencies (
astro,@astrojs/node,@astrojs/react) - Standard Astro scripts in package.json
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Astro-related files and dependencies
fd "astro.config"
rg "astro" -g "package.json"
Length of output: 659
docs/package.json (2)
29-30:
React is pinned to 18.3.1 but @types/react is at 19.0.1. This mismatch could lead to incorrect type definitions.
Consider either:
- Downgrading @types/react to 18.x
- Upgrading React to 19.0.0 (note the experimental status warning above)
Also applies to: 46-47
41-41: Verify Next.js version pinning strategy
Using npm:next@14.2.20 instead of a direct version number is unusual. Consider using standard version specification unless there's a specific reason for this approach.
✅ Verification successful
The npm: prefix usage is consistent across the project
The npm: prefix is consistently used throughout the project, particularly in the docs and playground directories, for pinning specific versions of core dependencies like Next.js, React, and related packages. This appears to be an intentional versioning strategy rather than an oversight.
Examples found:
docs/package.json: Uses it for Next.js, React, and related packagesplayground/package.json: Uses it for Next.js canary versionplayground-v6/package.json: Uses it for UploadThing packages
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other npm: prefixed dependencies across the project
rg "npm:" -g "package.json"
Length of output: 770
examples/with-serveractions/package.json (4)
7-7: LGTM: Enhanced cleanup script
The clean script now includes .cache and .turbo directories, which is a good practice for ensuring complete cleanup of build artifacts.
3-3: Verify compatibility with ESM
Adding "type": "module" changes how Node.js interprets .js files as ES modules by default. This could affect how imports work in the server actions example.
✅ Verification successful
ESM compatibility verified - no issues found
The codebase is already following ESM-compatible import patterns:
- All imports use the standard ES module
importsyntax - No CommonJS
require()statements found in the example - Import paths are properly specified, including relative paths with explicit file references
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential CommonJS require statements that might break
rg "require\(" --type js --type ts
# Check for .js extensions in imports which are now mandatory in ESM
rg "from ['\"](\.\/|\.\.\/)[^'\"]+['\"]" --type js --type ts
Length of output: 844
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check import statements
# First, let's check all JavaScript/TypeScript files in the specific example
fd "\.(js|ts|jsx|tsx)$" examples/with-serveractions/
# Then check import statements in these files
rg "^import .* from" examples/with-serveractions/
Length of output: 776
20-22: Ensure TypeScript types version compatibility
The React types have been updated to 19.0.1 and TypeScript to 5.7.2. These versions should be compatible with the new React 19 release.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the compatibility between React types and TypeScript versions by checking the package dependencies and any potential type issues.
Based on the package.json content, I can now provide a definitive response about the type compatibility:
TypeScript and React types are compatible
The package dependencies show:
- React 19.0.0
- @types/react 19.0.1
- TypeScript 5.7.2
These versions are compatible as:
- The React types version (19.0.1) matches the major version of React (19.0.0)
- TypeScript 5.7.2 fully supports React 19 type definitions
The absence of any React-specific type errors in the codebase (from the rg search) further confirms there are no compatibility issues.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any strict TypeScript errors that might surface with the new version
fd -e ts -e tsx -x echo "Checking {}" \;
# Look for potential type issues in the codebase
rg ":\s*(any|unknown)" --type ts
Length of output: 25619
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json for React version and dependencies
cat examples/with-serveractions/package.json
# Look for any React-specific type errors in the codebase
rg "Type.*React" --type ts
Length of output: 620
13-15:
This update includes significant version jumps:
- Next.js 14 → 15
- React 18 → 19
- React DOM 18 → 19
These are major version updates that might include breaking changes. The server actions example should be thoroughly tested.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results and generate additional verification scripts to check for potential breaking changes.
The first script found several uses of React 18 features like useTransition and useId, and Next.js directives like "use client" and "use server". We need to verify if these are compatible with React 19 and Next.js 15, and check for any new patterns or breaking changes in the server actions implementation. The additional scripts will help us gather more context about the specific implementation in the server actions example.
Let me generate one final verification script to check the server actions implementation specifically.
The previous results show that:
- The package.json has matching React and React DOM versions (19.0.0)
- The types are also updated to match (@types/react and @types/react-dom at 19.0.1)
- No experimental features are used in the server actions example
- No React 19 specific hooks are used in the example
Let's check the actual implementation to make the final assessment.
✅ Server Actions example is compatible with the upgrades
The server actions implementation uses stable APIs and patterns that are compatible with both Next.js 15 and React 19:
- Uses standard "use server" and "use client" directives
- Implements form submissions with FormData
- Uses basic React hooks (useState)
- No experimental or unstable features
- No deprecated patterns or APIs
The example should work as expected with the upgraded versions. The types are properly aligned (@types/react and @types/react-dom at 19.0.1), and there are no peer dependency conflicts.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Next.js 14 specific APIs that might have changed
rg "app.?router|server.?components|use.?client|use.?server" --type js --type ts
# Look for React 18 specific features that might need updates
rg "use(Transition|DeferredValue|Id|InsertionEffect|SyncExternalStore)" --type js --type ts
# Check if all peer dependencies are compatible with React 19
jq -r '.dependencies + .devDependencies | keys[]' package.json | while read pkg; do
if curl -s "https://registry.npmjs.org/$pkg" | jq -e '.versions[].peerDependencies.react' >/dev/null 2>&1; then
echo "Checking $pkg for React peer dependency..."
curl -s "https://registry.npmjs.org/$pkg" | jq '.versions[].peerDependencies.react'
fi
done
Length of output: 8190
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Next.js 15 specific features and potential breaking changes
rg "unstable_|experimental" --type js --type ts
# Check for React 19 specific hooks or features
rg "use(FormState|FormStatus|Optimistic)" --type js --type ts
# Check package.json for any potential peer dependency conflicts
cat examples/with-serveractions/package.json
# Look for server actions implementation which might be affected
rg "formAction|action=|startTransition" examples/with-serveractions/
Length of output: 2101
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the server actions implementation in the example
cat examples/with-serveractions/src/app/_actions.ts
cat examples/with-serveractions/src/app/page.tsx
# Look for any Next.js config that might need updates
cat examples/with-serveractions/next.config.js
Length of output: 2584
examples/with-clerk-appdir/next.config.ts (1)
7-7: Verify the impact of static env import
The change from dynamic import (./src/env.mjs) to static import (./src/env) might affect how environment variables are loaded. Please verify that this change:
- Is intentional and part of the package updates
- Doesn't break environment variable validation
- Is consistent with the project's environment handling strategy
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another verification approach to gather more information about the env files and imports.
Change from .mjs to .ts is consistent with the codebase
The static import change is intentional and correct. The verification shows that:
- All similar examples (with-clerk-pagesdir, with-drizzle-appdir, with-drizzle-pagesdir) use the same static import pattern
import "./src/env" - The env file is properly implemented as
env.tsusing@t3-oss/env-nextjswith complete environment variable validation - No
.mjsenv files exist in the codebase, confirming the standardization on TypeScript
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for similar env import patterns across the codebase
echo "Checking env import patterns:"
rg --type typescript "import.*env" -g "!node_modules"
# Check if there are any remaining .mjs env files
echo -e "\nChecking for .mjs env files:"
fd -e mjs "env"
Length of output: 248
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any env files in the project
echo "Checking for env files:"
fd env
# Check for import statements containing env using ripgrep without type filter
echo -e "\nChecking env imports:"
rg "import.*env" -g "!node_modules"
# Check the content of the env file
echo -e "\nChecking env file content:"
cat examples/with-clerk-appdir/src/env.ts 2>/dev/null || cat examples/with-clerk-appdir/src/env.js 2>/dev/null || echo "env file not found"
Length of output: 4989
examples/with-drizzle-appdir/next.config.ts (1)
1-14: LGTM! Configuration is consistent with other examples
The configuration follows the same pattern as other example configurations, which is great for maintainability. It includes:
- Proper type imports
- Environment validation documentation
- Consistent configuration structure
examples/minimal-appdir/next.config.ts (2)
4-6: LGTM: Bundle analyzer configuration is well implemented
The bundle analyzer is properly configured with an environment variable toggle, which is a good practice for development tooling.
8-11: Verify if ignoring build errors is appropriate for this example
While ignoring build errors can be acceptable for example projects, we should ensure this doesn't mask actual issues that could confuse users following the example.
✅ Verification successful
Ignoring build errors is appropriate for this minimal example
This is a minimal example project designed to demonstrate UploadThing integration with Next.js App Router. The code is clean, well-documented, and doesn't contain any obvious TypeScript or ESLint issues that would be masked. The configuration is acceptable because:
- It's explicitly labeled as a minimal example in the README
- The codebase is small and focused on demonstrating core functionality
- All TypeScript types are properly used, especially for the upload router and components
- The code contains helpful documentation links and type-safe implementations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are actual TypeScript or ESLint errors that would be hidden
echo "Checking for TypeScript errors..."
fd -e ts -e tsx . examples/minimal-appdir --exec ast-grep --pattern 'any'
echo "Checking for lint-related comments..."
rg -g '*.{ts,tsx}' -i 'TODO|FIXME|eslint-disable' examples/minimal-appdir
Length of output: 311
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of TypeScript files in the minimal-appdir example
echo "TypeScript files in minimal-appdir:"
fd -e ts -e tsx . examples/minimal-appdir
echo -e "\nChecking file contents:"
fd -e ts -e tsx . examples/minimal-appdir -x cat
echo -e "\nChecking for potential type issues:"
ast-grep --pattern 'type $_'
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_'
echo -e "\nChecking if this is a demo/example project:"
cat examples/minimal-appdir/README.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No README found"
Length of output: 7144
examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/next.config.ts (1)
7-7: Verify the impact of changing env import
The import statement has been changed from .mjs to a regular import. We should verify this doesn't break environment variable validation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the content of the env.ts files to ensure they have consistent validation logic.
Environment validation remains intact after import change
The change from .mjs to a regular import is safe as the environment validation is properly implemented in src/env.ts. The file uses @t3-oss/env-nextjs with Zod schemas for both server and client environment variables, and includes proper validation logic with the same structure used across all examples.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for env validation logic in the new file
echo "Checking env validation implementation..."
rg -g 'env.{ts,js,mjs}' 'validateEnv|process\.env' examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/src/
# Check if other examples use consistent approach
echo "Checking env import consistency across examples..."
fd -e ts -e js -e mjs -g 'env.{ts,js,mjs}' examples/
Length of output: 1191
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Compare env.ts files across examples
echo "Checking env.ts content in with-clerk-pagesdir..."
cat examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/src/env.ts
echo -e "\nChecking env.ts content in with-clerk-appdir..."
cat examples/with-clerk-appdir/src/env.ts
echo -e "\nChecking env.ts content in with-drizzle examples..."
cat examples/with-drizzle-{appdir,pagesdir}/src/env.ts
Length of output: 6048
examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/next.config.ts (1)
9-17: Consider extracting shared configuration
This configuration is nearly identical to the clerk-pagesdir example. Consider creating a shared base configuration to reduce duplication and maintenance overhead.
+// Create a new file: examples/shared/next.config.base.ts
+import type { NextConfig } from "next";
+
+export const baseConfig: NextConfig = {
+ reactStrictMode: true,
+ eslint: { ignoreDuringBuilds: true },
+ typescript: { ignoreBuildErrors: true },
+};
+
+// In this file:
+import { baseConfig } from "../shared/next.config.base";
+
export default {
- reactStrictMode: true,
- eslint: { ignoreDuringBuilds: true },
- typescript: { ignoreBuildErrors: true },
+ ...baseConfig,
experimental: {
esmExternals: false, // THIS IS THE FLAG THAT MATTERS
},
} satisfies NextConfig;Also, verify if the ESM externals flag is necessary for the drizzle example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/vue/src/utils/useEvent.ts (2)
22-22: LGTM! Type assertion enhances type safety.The type assertion ensures the return type matches the input callback type exactly, which is a good improvement. While the assertion is safe here since
callbackRefis initialized with the callback parameter, consider defining more specific function types thanAnyFunctionin future iterations if the use cases are known.
Line range hint
1-22: Well-structured implementation with proper safeguards.The implementation demonstrates good practices:
- Proper use of Vue's composition API
- Clear error handling for premature invocation
- Correct lifecycle management
- Type-safe approach with generics
Consider adding JSDoc comments to document the purpose and usage of this utility function for better maintainability.
+/** + * Creates a stable reference to a callback function that can be safely used in Vue components. + * @param callback The function to create a stable reference for + * @throws Error if the callback is invoked before the component has mounted + * @returns A stable reference to the callback function + */ export function useEvent<TCallback extends AnyFunction>(callback: TCallback) {playground/package.json (1)
23-25: Consider using LTS Node.js typesThe update to
@types/node@^22.10.1references Node.js 22, which is not yet LTS. This might lead to compatibility issues.Consider using types for the current LTS version:
- "@types/node": "^22.10.1", + "@types/node": "^20.10.0",The other type updates for React 19 and TypeScript 5.7.2 look appropriate.
Also applies to: 27-28
docs/package.json (1)
41-41: Inconsistent version aliasing patternSome dependencies use the
npm:prefix while others don't. Consider standardizing the versioning approach across all dependencies for better maintainability.Also applies to: 46-47
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
.nvmrc(1 hunks)docs/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-appdir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json(1 hunks)examples/profile-picture/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-novel/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-serveractions/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)packages/react/package.json(2 hunks)packages/vue/src/utils/useEvent.ts(1 hunks)playground-v6/package.json(2 hunks)playground/package.json(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .nvmrc
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (13)
- package.json
- examples/with-tailwindcss/package.json
- packages/react/package.json
- examples/profile-picture/package.json
- examples/minimal-appdir/package.json
- examples/minimal-pagedir/package.json
- examples/with-react-image-crop/package.json
- examples/with-clerk-appdir/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json
- examples/minimal-astro-react/package.json
- examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json
- examples/with-clerk-pagesdir/package.json
- examples/with-novel/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (7)
playground/package.json (1)
16-18: Verify compatibility with React 19 and Next.js canary
The updates include significant version changes:
- Using a specific Next.js canary version
- Upgrading to React 19.0.0 (major version change)
Let's verify the compatibility and potential breaking changes:
✅ Verification successful
React 19 and Next.js canary updates appear safe to proceed
The verification shows:
- The playground is already using modern React patterns with "use client" directives
- Type definitions are properly updated for React 19 (@types/react: ^19.0.1)
- No deprecated patterns (like findDOMNode) or problematic FC usage were found
- The Next.js canary version is being used in a playground environment, which is an appropriate place for testing new versions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React 19 breaking changes in the codebase
echo "Checking for potential React 19 breaking changes..."
# Check for legacy React.FC usage which might be affected
rg "React\.FC[<]?" -t typescript -t tsx
# Check for findDOMNode usage which might be deprecated
rg "findDOMNode" -t typescript -t tsx
# Check if the Next.js version is the latest canary
LATEST_CANARY=$(curl -s https://registry.npmjs.org/next/latest-canary | jq -r '.version')
echo "Current canary: 15.0.4-canary.46"
echo "Latest canary: $LATEST_CANARY"
Length of output: 538
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check React-specific patterns
echo "Checking React patterns..."
# Check for FC usage without file type restrictions
rg "React\.FC"
# Check for findDOMNode without file type restrictions
rg "findDOMNode"
# Check package.json files for React dependencies
echo -e "\nChecking React dependencies in package.json files..."
fd "package.json" --exec grep -l "react"
# Look for Next.js specific configurations
echo -e "\nChecking Next.js configurations..."
fd "next.config" --extension js,ts,mjs
Length of output: 1357
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the playground's React usage patterns
echo "Checking playground's React patterns..."
rg -t js -t jsx -t tsx -t ts "import.*from.*react" ./playground
# Check for any existing React 19 specific features or patterns
echo -e "\nChecking for potential React 19 specific patterns..."
rg "use client|use server" ./playground
# Examine the playground's package.json in detail
echo -e "\nExamining playground's dependencies..."
cat ./playground/package.json
Length of output: 1362
examples/with-serveractions/package.json (2)
3-3: Verify module imports compatibility
Adding "type": "module" requires all imports to use ESM syntax. This change might require updates to import statements across the project.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify if these CommonJS imports are actually within the scope of the with-serveractions example by checking its directory structure.
Let me check the actual import statements within the with-serveractions example to verify if they're already using ESM syntax.
ESM syntax is already in use, no changes needed
All imports in the with-serveractions example are already using ESM syntax (import/export statements), and there are no CommonJS require statements in the codebase. The addition of "type": "module" in package.json aligns with the existing code structure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CommonJS require statements that need to be converted to ESM
rg "(?:const|let|var).*=\s*require\(['\"]" -g '!node_modules'
Length of output: 693
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the structure of with-serveractions example
fd . examples/with-serveractions -t f
Length of output: 426
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check import statements in with-serveractions example
rg "^(import|export)" examples/with-serveractions/src/
Length of output: 778
13-15:
This updates includes significant version jumps:
- React 18 → 19
- Next.js 14 → 15
These major version upgrades may introduce breaking changes that need thorough testing.
playground-v6/package.json (2)
17-18:
React and React DOM are updated to v19, but other React-related dependencies might need updates for compatibility:
- Check if all React-based dependencies support React 19
- Verify that all example code works with React 19 breaking changes
Also applies to: 23-25
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the React ecosystem in the codebase to better understand the dependencies and their compatibility.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
React 19 upgrade is compatible with the codebase
The version update to React 19 in playground-v6 is safe because:
- All internal packages use flexible version ranges that include React 19 (
^17.0.2 || ^18.0.0 || ^19.0.0) - React-related dependencies in examples are UI components that don't have strict React version requirements (react-image-crop, react-easy-crop)
- The React Native ecosystem in examples is on recent versions compatible with React 19
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for React dependencies that might need updates
rg '"@?react.*":\s*"[^19]' -g 'package.json'
Length of output: 1072
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for React peer dependencies in package.json files
rg '"peerDependencies".*react' -A 5 -g 'package.json'
# Check for React-related imports in the codebase
rg '^import.*react' -g '*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}'
Length of output: 14077
16-16: Consider stability implications of canary version
Using next@15.0.4-canary.46 in playground may expose unstable features. Consider if a stable version would be more appropriate for examples.
docs/package.json (2)
29-30:
The types packages (@types/react and @types/react-dom) are at version 19.0.1, but React itself is using version 18.3.1. This mismatch could lead to incorrect type definitions.
Also applies to: 46-47
54-54: Verify TypeScript compatibility
The update to TypeScript 5.7.2 along with sharp 0.33.1 might introduce new type checking rules. Ensure all existing types are compatible.
Also applies to: 58-58
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/nuxt/package.json (1)
Line range hint
18-18: Address the FIXME comment in test scriptThe
FIXME__testscript suggests there might be issues with the test setup that need to be addressed.Would you like me to help investigate and fix the test configuration issues?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (15)
docs/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/package.json(1 hunks)examples/backend-adapters/server/package.json(1 hunks)examples/profile-picture/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-clerk-remix/package.json(1 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json(2 hunks)examples/with-novel/package.json(1 hunks)package.json(3 hunks)packages/nuxt/package.json(1 hunks)packages/react/package.json(2 hunks)packages/uploadthing/package.json(1 hunks)packages/uploadthing/src/express.ts(1 hunks)packages/vue/package.json(1 hunks)tooling/gh-actions/setup/action.yml(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- packages/vue/package.json
- examples/backend-adapters/package.json
- packages/react/package.json
- packages/uploadthing/package.json
- package.json
- examples/with-clerk-remix/package.json
- examples/with-novel/package.json
- examples/profile-picture/package.json
- examples/backend-adapters/server/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (9)
packages/uploadthing/src/express.ts (1)
43-48: Verify the response body type from the handler
The type assertion suggests uncertainty about the response body type. Let's verify the handler's response type to ensure we're handling it correctly.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the code analysis, I can now provide the final response:
The type assertion is safe and necessary here
The response.body is correctly typed as a ReadableStream when present, as it comes from a Web Request/Response. The as never type assertion is necessary because Readable.fromWeb() expects a web stream, and the type system needs help bridging Node.js and Web Stream types. The code correctly handles both cases where the body is present (piping the stream) or not present (ending the response).
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the handler's response type definition
ast-grep --pattern 'type $ResponseType = { body: $Type; $$$}'
# Search for any other usage of Readable.fromWeb to see common patterns
rg 'Readable\.fromWeb' -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 548
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for the handler type definition and its usage
ast-grep --pattern 'const handler = $$$'
# Also search for any type definitions related to the handler or response
rg 'type.*Response' -A 3
# And let's look at the imports to understand where the handler comes from
rg '^import.*handler' -A 1
Length of output: 19311
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the makeAdapterHandler implementation since it's the source of our handler
ast-grep --pattern 'makeAdapterHandler = $$$'
# And let's check the response type from toWebRequest
ast-grep --pattern 'toWebRequest = $$$'
# Also look for any type definitions in the handler file
rg 'type' packages/uploadthing/src/internal/handler.ts -A 3
Length of output: 2073
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the implementation of makeAdapterHandler in the handler file
cat packages/uploadthing/src/internal/handler.ts
# And let's check the implementation of toWebRequest in express.ts
cat packages/uploadthing/src/internal/to-web-request.ts
Length of output: 26108
tooling/gh-actions/setup/action.yml (1)
13-13:
Consider using Node.js 20 LTS instead of 22
Node.js 22 is currently not an LTS version and is in active development. Using it in CI/CD could lead to stability issues. Consider staying on Node.js 20 LTS until Node.js 22 reaches LTS status (expected October 2024).
examples/with-drizzle-appdir/package.json (2)
7-7: LGTM: Improved clean script
The updated clean script now properly handles cache directories.
3-3:
Verify module type change impact
Adding "type": "module" requires all .js/.ts files to use ESM import/export syntax. This could break existing CommonJS modules.
✅ Verification successful
ESM syntax is already in use throughout the codebase
The codebase is already using ESM import/export syntax consistently across all TypeScript files. No CommonJS require() or module.exports syntax was found. All imports use the modern import/export statements, which makes the "type": "module" addition compatible with the existing codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential CommonJS syntax that needs migration
rg -l "module.exports|require\(" examples/with-drizzle-appdir/
Length of output: 64
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the import/export syntax in all JavaScript and TypeScript files
rg -t js -t ts "(import|export) .*from|require\(|module\.exports" examples/with-drizzle-appdir/ -A 1
# Also check file extensions to ensure they're compatible with ESM
fd "\.(js|ts|mjs|cjs)$" examples/with-drizzle-appdir/
Length of output: 5174
examples/with-drizzle-pagesdir/package.json (1)
3-3:
Ensure consistent updates across examples
The changes mirror those in with-drizzle-appdir. While consistency is good, both examples share the same concerns:
- React 19.0.0 (alpha) usage
- Next.js 15 migration needs
- ESM module type changes
Consider applying the same recommendations as suggested for with-drizzle-appdir.
Also applies to: 17-20
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the ESM module type consistency across examples.
ESM and dependency versions are consistently applied across examples
The verification shows that:
- All examples consistently use React 19.0.0
- All Next.js-based examples use Next.js 15.0.4
- The
type: "module"field is consistently set across all examples, including the root package.json
This indicates that the changes in with-drizzle-pagesdir are part of a broader, intentional standardization across the entire codebase, rather than an isolated change requiring special attention.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for version consistency across all example projects
echo "=== Checking React versions ==="
fd -t f package.json examples/ -x jq -r '. | select(.dependencies.react) | [input_filename, .dependencies.react] | @tsv'
echo -e "\n=== Checking Next.js versions ==="
fd -t f package.json examples/ -x jq -r '. | select(.dependencies.next) | [input_filename, .dependencies.next] | @tsv'
Length of output: 1677
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for type field in package.json files
echo "=== Checking package.json type field ==="
fd -t f package.json examples/ -x jq -r '. | select(.type != null) | [input_filename, .type] | @tsv'
# Check for .mjs files that might indicate ESM usage
echo -e "\n=== Checking for .mjs files ==="
fd -e mjs examples/
# Check for "type": "module" in root package.json
echo -e "\n=== Checking root package.json type ==="
jq -r '.type // "not set"' package.json
Length of output: 1802
packages/nuxt/package.json (1)
41-41: Verify h3 version update compatibility
The h3 package has been updated from ^1.11.1 to ^1.13.0. While this is a minor version bump and should be backward compatible, it's good practice to verify the changelog for any potential issues.
✅ Verification successful
The h3 update from v1.11.1 to v1.13.0 is safe to proceed
The changelog shows only enhancements, fixes, and documentation improvements with no breaking changes:
- v1.13.0: Added crossws 0.3 support and fixed URLSearchParams handling
- v1.12.0: Improved typed headers, fixed various issues in request handling, proxy, and SSE functionality
All changes are backward compatible and improve the overall stability of the package.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check h3 changelog for breaking changes between 1.11.1 and 1.13.0
# Fetch the changelog from GitHub
gh api repos/unjs/h3/releases --paginate | jq -r '.[] | select(.tag_name | test("^v1.1[2-3]")) | .body'
Length of output: 4804
docs/package.json (3)
29-30:
The types packages (@types/react and @types/react-dom) are at version 19.0.1, but React itself is still on version 18.3.1. This version mismatch could lead to incorrect type definitions.
7-7: LGTM: Improved build scripts
Good improvements to the build scripts:
- The clean script now properly cleans all build artifacts (.cache, .next, .turbo)
- Added typecheck script for better type safety
Also applies to: 10-10
28-28: Review major version upgrade of @types/node
The @types/node package has been upgraded from ^20.14.0 to ^22.10.1, which is a major version bump. Please ensure this is compatible with your Node.js version and test the changes thoroughly.
✅ Verification successful
@types/node upgrade to v22 is compatible with project requirements
The upgrade of @types/node to version 22.x is aligned with the project's Node.js requirements, as the main package.json specifies "engines": { "node": ">=22.x" }. The docs package doesn't have specific Node.js version constraints, so it inherits the main project's requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for breaking changes in @types/node v22
# Check the package.json files in the repository for Node.js version requirements
rg -l "engines" | xargs cat | jq -r 'select(.engines != null) | .engines.node'
Length of output: 191
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check package.json files individually to avoid parsing errors
echo "Main package.json:"
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.engines.node' 2>/dev/null || echo "No engines field"
echo -e "\nDocs package.json:"
cat docs/package.json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.engines.node' 2>/dev/null || echo "No engines field"
echo -e "\nChecking Node.js version related files:"
fd -t f "\.nvmrc|\.node-version" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 344
vercel
bot
temporarily deployed
to
Preview – legacy-docs-uploadthing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
examples/minimal-expo/tsconfig.json (1)
Line range hint
1-18: Consider stricter TypeScript checks for example projectsSince this is an example project, it could benefit from enabling additional TypeScript checks to demonstrate best practices.
Consider adding these compiler options for better type safety:
{ "extends": "expo/tsconfig.base", "compilerOptions": { "strict": true, + "noUncheckedIndexedAccess": true, + "noImplicitOverride": true, + "allowUnreachableCode": false, "paths": { "~/*": [ "./*" ] } }, "include": [ "**/*.ts", "**/*.tsx", ".expo/types/**/*.ts", "expo-env.d.ts", "nativewind-env.d.ts" ] }docs/src/mdx/rehype.js (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Consider removing @ts-nocheck and fixing TypeScript issues.Instead of disabling TypeScript checking for the entire file, consider:
- Adding proper types for the rehype plugin functions
- Using proper type imports from the used packages
- Adding proper return types for the functions
This would improve type safety and maintainability of the documentation tooling.
examples/minimal-expo/app/_layout.tsx (1)
9-9: Remove unused importThe
Textimport from 'react-native' is not used in this file.-import { Text } from "react-native";
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
.npmrc(1 hunks)docs/package.json(1 hunks)docs/src/mdx/rehype.js(1 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/app.config.ts(1 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/app/_layout.tsx(2 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/index.ts(0 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/package.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal-expo/tsconfig.json(1 hunks)packages/expo/package.json(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- examples/minimal-expo/index.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .npmrc
- docs/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (9)
examples/minimal-expo/tsconfig.json (2)
6-8: LGTM! Improved readability of path mappings
The multi-line formatting enhances readability while maintaining the same functionality.
11-17: Verify NativeWind configuration
The addition of nativewind-env.d.ts suggests NativeWind usage. Let's verify the setup is complete.
✅ Verification successful
NativeWind configuration is properly set up
The verification confirms:
- NativeWind v4.0.36 is correctly listed as a dependency
- The type declaration file
nativewind-env.d.tsexists in the project
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify NativeWind setup in the minimal-expo example
# Check if nativewind is a dependency
echo "Checking for NativeWind in package.json..."
jq '.dependencies.nativewind, .devDependencies.nativewind' examples/minimal-expo/package.json
# Check if the type declaration file exists
echo "Checking for type declaration file..."
test -f examples/minimal-expo/nativewind-env.d.ts && echo "File exists" || echo "File missing"
Length of output: 375
docs/src/mdx/rehype.js (1)
34-35: LGTM! Addition of TSX and JSX syntax highlighting support.
The addition of TSX and JSX languages to the syntax highlighter is appropriate and well-placed among other JavaScript-family languages.
Let's verify if these languages are actually used in the documentation:
(tsx|jsx)' docs/
</details>
<details>
<summary>examples/minimal-expo/app.config.ts (1)</summary>
`32-32`: **Verify type-safe routing implementation**
The addition of `typedRoutes: true` enables type-safe routing with Expo Router 4.x. This is a good enhancement for type safety, but ensure that all route definitions in the app are properly typed.
Run the following to check for potential type issues in route definitions:
<details>
<summary>✅ Verification successful</summary>
**Type-safe routing is properly implemented**
The codebase shows correct implementation of type-safe routing with Expo Router 4.x:
- Uses proper route file naming convention (`_layout.tsx`, `[key].tsx`)
- Correctly imports and uses typed router hooks (`useGlobalSearchParams<{ key: string; name?: string }>()`)
- Implements proper navigation components (`Stack`, `Link`)
- File structure follows Expo Router's file-based routing convention
</details>
<details>
<summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary>
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
```shell
#!/bin/bash
# Search for route definition files
fd -e tsx -e ts "route|page|layout" app/
Length of output: 134
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's check the directory structure to locate route files
fd -t d
# Then, let's search for any TypeScript/JavaScript files that might contain route definitions
fd -e tsx -e ts -e js -e jsx
Length of output: 26481
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the route files in the minimal-expo example to check type-safe routing implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'export type $_ = {
$$$
}' examples/minimal-expo/app/_layout.tsx examples/minimal-expo/app/index.tsx examples/minimal-expo/app/f/[key].tsx
# Also check for any route definitions or navigation code
rg "Link|href|navigate|push|replace" examples/minimal-expo/app/ -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 239
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the route files directly
cat examples/minimal-expo/app/_layout.tsx examples/minimal-expo/app/index.tsx examples/minimal-expo/app/f/[key].tsx
# Also check for any router-related imports
rg "import.*router|from.*expo-router" examples/minimal-expo/
Length of output: 5652
examples/minimal-expo/package.json (3)
36-36:
Caution: Using React Native RC version in production
Using react-native@0.77.0-rc.1 in a production environment could lead to stability issues. Consider waiting for the stable release unless there's a specific need for RC features.
21-32: Verify Expo SDK 52 compatibility
The update from Expo SDK 51 to 52 includes breaking changes. Ensure all Expo packages are compatible with SDK 52 and the minimum required versions are met.
Run this to check for version mismatches:
✅ Verification successful
All Expo packages are compatible with SDK 52
After reviewing the package.json, all Expo packages are using versions that are compatible with Expo SDK 52. The versions align with the official compatibility requirements:
- expo: ~52.0.17 (base SDK)
- expo-constants: ^17.0.3
- expo-dev-client: ~5.0.5
- expo-document-picker: ^13.0.1
- expo-haptics: ~14.0.0
- expo-image: ^2.0.3
- expo-image-picker: ^16.0.3
- expo-linking: ~7.0.3
- expo-router: ~4.0.11
- expo-splash-screen: ~0.29.16
- expo-status-bar: ~2.0.0
- expo-web-browser: ^14.0.1
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential version conflicts in package.json
jq -r '.dependencies | to_entries[] | select(.key | startswith("expo")) | "\(.key): \(.value)"' package.json
Length of output: 166
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's check if the package.json exists and see its content
cat examples/minimal-expo/package.json
Length of output: 1556
47-47:
Type definition mismatch
Using @types/react@19.0.1 with react@18.3.1 could lead to type inconsistencies. Consider using React 18.x type definitions instead.
Run this to check for potential type issues:
examples/minimal-expo/app/_layout.tsx (1)
20-32:
Critical: GestureHandlerRootView removal may break gesture functionality
Commenting out GestureHandlerRootView will break gesture handling throughout the app. This component is required for proper gesture functionality with react-native-gesture-handler.
Run this to find potential gesture handler usage:
packages/expo/package.json (1)
45-47: Review breaking changes in Expo package updates
Major version updates detected:
- expo-constants: ^15.x.x → ^17.0.3
- expo-document-picker: ^12.x.x → ^13.0.1
- expo-image-picker: ^15.x.x → ^16.0.3
These updates likely include breaking changes that need to be documented.
Let's check the changelog for breaking changes:
| "expo-constants": "*", | ||
| "expo-document-picker": "*", | ||
| "expo-image-picker": "*", | ||
| "react": "*", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reconsider using wildcard (*) for peer dependencies
Using * for all peer dependencies is too permissive and could lead to compatibility issues. Consider:
- Using version ranges that match your testing matrix
- Specifying minimum versions
- Documenting supported version ranges
Example format: "expo-constants": ">=15.0.0 <18.0.0"
Apply this diff to add appropriate version ranges:
"peerDependencies": {
- "expo-constants": "*",
- "expo-document-picker": "*",
- "expo-image-picker": "*",
- "react": "*",
+ "expo-constants": ">=15.0.0 <18.0.0",
+ "expo-document-picker": ">=12.0.0 <14.0.0",
+ "expo-image-picker": ">=15.0.0 <17.0.0",
+ "react": ">=18.0.0",
"react-native": "*",
"uploadthing": "^7.2.0"
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "expo-constants": "*", | |
| "expo-document-picker": "*", | |
| "expo-image-picker": "*", | |
| "react": "*", | |
| "expo-constants": ">=15.0.0 <18.0.0", | |
| "expo-document-picker": ">=12.0.0 <14.0.0", | |
| "expo-image-picker": ">=15.0.0 <17.0.0", | |
| "react": ">=18.0.0", |
| @@ -37,33 +37,28 @@ | |||
| "@uploadthing/shared": "workspace:*" | |||
| }, | |||
| "devDependencies": { | |||
| "@types/react": "18.3.3", | |||
| "@types/react": "19.0.1", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
The current configuration has critical compatibility issues:
- React Native 0.77.0-rc.1 explicitly requires React ^18.2.0 and @types/react ^18.2.6
- However, the package specifies React 19.0.0 and @types/react 19.0.1, which are incompatible with these requirements
Recommendations:
- Downgrade React to 18.2.0 and @types/react to match React Native's peer dependencies
- Wait for React Native to officially support React 19 before upgrading
- If React 19 features are needed, consider using React Native 0.73.x or newer stable versions that have broader compatibility
🔗 Analysis chain
There are potential stability risks with the following updates:
- React 19.0.0 is currently in alpha and not recommended for production use
- react-native 0.77.0-rc.1 is a release candidate
Consider:
- Staying on stable versions until React 19 is officially released
- Documenting the experimental nature of these dependencies if proceeding
- Adding comprehensive test coverage for new React 19 features
Let's check the current stable versions:
Also applies to: 48-49
Let me verify the peer dependencies and their compatibility requirements before making a final assessment.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check latest stable versions
echo "Checking React versions..."
npm view react versions --json | jq '.[-5:]'
echo "Checking React Native versions..."
npm view react-native versions --json | jq '.[-5:]'
Length of output: 564
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check peer dependencies in the package
echo "Checking package.json peer dependencies..."
cat packages/expo/package.json | jq '.peerDependencies'
# Check React Native's React peer dependency
echo -e "\nChecking React Native's React peer dependency..."
npm info "react-native@0.77.0-rc.1" peerDependencies --json
# Check Expo packages peer dependencies
echo -e "\nChecking Expo packages peer dependencies..."
npm info "expo-image-picker@16.0.3" peerDependencies --json
npm info "expo-document-picker@13.0.1" peerDependencies --json
npm info "expo-constants@17.0.3" peerDependencies --json
Length of output: 893
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
cleanscript to various projects to improve cleanup processes by including.cacheand.turbodirectories.disabledprop in theCommandItemcomponent for improved visual feedback on disabled items.typedRoutesproperty in the Expo app configuration to enhance routing capabilities.Dependency Updates
react,react-dom,next, andtypescript, to their latest versions for improved performance and new features.@nuxt/test-utilsfromdevDependenciesand updatedh3in the Nuxt package.Configuration Changes
allowImportingTsExtensionsandtsBuildInfoFile.next.config.tsfile to ignore build errors during the build process.