We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
graphiql-explorer
license-checker-webpack-plugin
In our application we validate the package's licenses using the license-checker-webpack-plugin before the production build.
While running the license checker on graphiql-explorer, it results in failure due to the incorrect value returned by its npm package description.
The error returned by the license checker looks like License: [email protected] has disallowed license SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
License: [email protected] has disallowed license SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
If one checks the License section of https://www.npmjs.com/package/graphiql-explorer, you can see that the value SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE is not what the license checker is expecting.
SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
A simple resolution to this issue will be updating the npm details page of the package with the correct license value.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Description:
In our application we validate the package's licenses using the license-checker-webpack-plugin before the production build.
While running the license checker on
graphiql-explorer
, it results in failure due to the incorrect value returned by its npm package description.The error returned by the license checker looks like
License: [email protected] has disallowed license SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
If one checks the License section of https://www.npmjs.com/package/graphiql-explorer, you can see that the value
SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
is not what the license checker is expecting.A simple resolution to this issue will be updating the npm details page of the package with the correct license value.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: