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

[SuperEditor] Bumped http lower bound to v1.0.0 (Resolves #1464) #1511

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rutvik110
Copy link
Collaborator

@rutvik110 rutvik110 commented Oct 14, 2023

[SuperEditor] Bumped http lower bound to v1.0.0, example deps updated (Resolves #1464)

This PR updates the lower bound of http version from 0.13.1 to 1.0.0

Also, updated super editor example deps that got affected due to this update.

@rutvik110 rutvik110 changed the title [SuperEditor] Bumped http lower bound to v1.0.0 (Resolves 1464) [SuperEditor] Bumped http lower bound to v1.0.0 (Resolves #1464) Oct 14, 2023
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ dependencies:
characters: ^1.2.0
collection: ^1.15.0
follow_the_leader: ^0.0.4+3
http: ">=0.13.1 <2.0.0"
http: ">=1.0.0 <2.0.0"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is tightening the constraint, not loosening it. Does this actually solve the problem? If users need http v1.0.0, why doesn't the existing constraints allow for that? isn't v1.0.0 >= v0.13.1 and < v2.0.0?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes that's correct, it does tightens the constraints.

On the reported issue, I was able to reproduce it within super editor example when referring the super_editor through pub.dev but wasn't able to identify why the loose constraints didn't satisfy the dependencies.
Referring the super_editor package that was present locally didn't seemed to introduced this issue when resolving deps which is unclear to me why.

This bump may be a wrong decision on my side but I'll have to give it another look to get proper answer to this and ensure if this would resolve the issue or if it's something the users could fix on their end itself.

@rutvik110
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rutvik110 commented Oct 15, 2023

Closing this PR as currently there doesn't seem to be any need for this update to resolve the reported issue #1464. The issue is likely related to something else which is not clear at this point and need to be discussed in the reported issue first.

@rutvik110 rutvik110 closed this Oct 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

super_editor is incompatible with google_fonts due to http version
2 participants