chore(deps-dev): take vitest 5 and coverage-v8 5 together - #68
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Dependabot opened these as two pull requests, and neither could merge alone:
`@vitest/coverage-v8` pins `vitest` exactly, so bumping either on its own fails
`npm ci` with ERESOLVE. That is the whole of why both were red -- the logs show
`Conflicting peer dependency: vitest@4.1.11` and nothing else.
This package publishes a Vitest surface (`./testing/vitest` and
`./testing/vitest-config`) and declares `peerDependencies: { vitest: ">=4" }`,
so passing here is not enough on its own: the claim is about what consumers
get. Measured both sides. Inside: quality (format, five typecheck projects,
lint, 1087 tests with coverage, knip, TypeDoc), `verify:package` against the
packed tarball, and both real-host contract lanes. Outside: this tree was
packed and installed into the one consumer that merges the kit's Vitest config,
with vitest 5 alongside it -- its 236 unit tests, which go through the alias
this package ships, all pass.
That consumer's integration project still fails six tests on vitest 5, and
still for its own reason: it patches `Module._load` to hand a built CJS bundle
the mock *and* merges the alias into the same project. Nothing here changes
that, and nothing here needs to -- the hold lives there, with that exit
condition, and `vitest >=4` remains accurate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NeGat1Bq4vzkzFBgtuc46G
This was referenced Sep 14, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Supersedes #65 and #66, which cannot merge separately.
Why one pull request
@vitest/coverage-v8pinsvitestexactly, so either bump alone failsnpm ci:That is the only thing wrong with either of them. Together they resolve cleanly.
Why passing here is not enough
This package publishes a Vitest surface —
./testing/vitest,./testing/vitest-config— and declarespeerDependencies: { vitest: ">=4" }. That declaration is a claim about what consumers get, so it was measured on both sides.Inside:
quality(format, five typecheck projects, lint, 1087 tests with coverage, knip, TypeDoc),verify:packageagainst the packed tarball, and both real-host contract lanes — desktop and web.Outside: this tree was packed and installed into the consumer that merges the kit's Vitest config, with vitest 5 alongside it. Its 236 unit tests — the ones that go through the alias this package ships — all pass.
What still fails, and why it is not this
That consumer's integration project fails six tests on vitest 5. It patches
Module._loadto hand a built CJS bundle the mock and merges the kit's alias into the same project; the two together stop sharing one module instance under vitest 5. The sibling extensions that do only one of those things pass.Nothing here changes that, and nothing here needs to. The hold stays in that repository with that exit condition, and
vitest >=4remains accurate.🤖 Generated with Claude Code