Skip to content
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

Test under Node v18 in CI #48825

Closed
5 tasks done
ddzz opened this issue Apr 24, 2022 · 0 comments Β· Fixed by #48824
Closed
5 tasks done

Test under Node v18 in CI #48825

ddzz opened this issue Apr 24, 2022 · 0 comments Β· Fixed by #48824
Labels
Infrastructure Issue relates to TypeScript team infrastructure

Comments

@ddzz
Copy link
Contributor

ddzz commented Apr 24, 2022

Suggestion

Node v18 was released recently. TypeScript should be tested under this version in CI.

πŸ” Search Terms

Node, Node 18.x, continuous integration, CI, GitHub Actions

βœ… Viability Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

  • This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
  • This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
  • This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
  • This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
  • This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.

⭐ Suggestion

Node v18 was released recently. TypeScript should be tested under this version in CI.

πŸ“ƒ Motivating Example

Running tests in CI under Node v18 shows that TypeScript works with the latest version of Node.

πŸ’» Use Cases

Coverage of all major Node versions in CI.

@andrewbranch andrewbranch added the Infrastructure Issue relates to TypeScript team infrastructure label Apr 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Infrastructure Issue relates to TypeScript team infrastructure
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants