Upgrade spfx 1.6 FN002008 saves exact when it shouldn't
See original GitHub issueWhen upgrading a project from spfx 1.5.1 to 1.6.0 the report instructs the following command:
npm i tslint-microsoft-contrib@5.0.0 --save-exact -D
However the default version specification for this package when scaffolding a net new project is ~5.0.0. I don’t think this is a big problem, however if tomorrow 1.6.1 comes along and the cli implements the upgrade sequence as well, a project that was upgraded from 1.5.1 will trigger a finding for this rule.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:23 (23 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Upgrade spfx 1.6 FN002008 saves exact when it shouldn't
When upgrading a project from spfx 1.5.1 to 1.6.0 the report instructs the following command: npm i tslint-microsoft-contrib@5.0.0 ...
Read more >SharePoint Framework v1.6 release notes
In this article. Upgrading projects from v1.5.1 to v1.6; New features and capabilities; Changes in this release.
Read more >How to upgrade SharePoint Framework to 1.14 | SPFx 2022
spfx #sharepoint #sharepointframeworkMy name is Rob Pearmain. Today I talk about how to upgrade your projects to the new 1.14 version.
Read more >SharePoint Framework – Project Upgrade
The simple steps to upgrade · Open command prompt. · Navigate to the SPFx project folder. · Type below command to open the...
Read more >Significant updates to our Jest Presets for SPFx projects
In this post, I'll cover the updates recently applied to our Jest ... @voitanos/jest-preset-spfx-react16@ts3.7 --save-dev --save-exact.
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found

thanks for taking the time to discuss this item. closing for now
side note, if this needs fixing, that probably means that #572 needs the “inexact” arrays again. Let me know how this goes, I’ll update my PR accordingly.