-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
maintenance: Move package.json to the repository root #351
Conversation
1b467be
to
b8ebc39
Compare
278aa87
to
c683837
Compare
c683837
to
2871a94
Compare
@masutaka Please your review about CI Errors section! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CI Errors
https://github.com/liam-hq/liam/actions/runs/12463106970/job/34784974243?pr=351
It seems that the summary generation fails due to large change differences.
Perhaps we can ignore it and merge it, and there will be no problem with the next PR.
You may be a little misguided in your perception. But if a vulnerable package is merged into the main branch, Dependabot alerts will find it. 😄
FYI:
Dependency review only looks at packages that have changed in the diff of a pull request, so the next pull request will not find any problems with this pull request.
Oh... you are right. It already contained a vulnerable package. |
FYI:
I have subscribed to this issue! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've tested the app and it's working fine. LGTM!✨
Thanks for review! |
Description
Move package.json to the repository root. And the associated files are adjusted accordingly.
Motivation
There may be a future when a backend directory is needed, but we can think about that at that time.
Blocking
After the merge of #349, merge this PR after the changeset is gone.
CI Errors
https://github.com/liam-hq/liam/actions/runs/12463106970/job/34784974243?pr=351
It seems that the summary generation fails due to large change differences.
Perhaps we can ignore it and merge it, and there will be no problem with the next PR.