Fall back to .node-version if it exists #1625

philsturgeon · 2017-10-05T16:49:06Z

Version normalization removes the issue of the missing v nicely!

The test shows that precedence is maintained, and I've updated the README too.

Resolves #794

ljharb

Per #794 (comment), I still think this feature should be blocked on nodejs/version-management#13

CONTRIBUTING.md

ljharb · 2017-10-05T17:43:27Z

README.md

@@ -343,6 +344,15 @@ Found '/path/to/project/.nvmrc' with version <5.9>
 Now using node v5.9.1 (npm v3.7.3)
 ```

+### .node-version
+
+For a little compatability with other node version managers, nvm will also sniff for `.node-version` files. They're the same as `.rmvrc`, they just share a common name.


compatibility

also there's no need to mention rvm; node and ruby don't have as much overlap as you might think :-)

I meant nvm not rvm, sorry! :D

in that case, they're not actually the same - nvmrc supports any "versionish" that nvm does; node-version only would support a literal major.minor.patch version.

ljharb · 2017-10-05T17:44:23Z

README.md

+
+For a little compatability with other node version managers, nvm will also sniff for `.node-version` files. They're the same as `.rmvrc`, they just share a common name.
+
+$ echo "5.9" > .node-version


From the linked issue, i think .node-version might need to be a specific version - including the patch.

I'm not sure what you mean? nodenv doesn't require a patch?

Regardless, node-version will be a subset of nvmrc - so it'll be important to be specific.

To be clear here, nodenv is also exact-match with the .node-version string. The only munging that it does, is to allow the addition of a v prefix.

Patch-less (or even major-only) version specifiers is only supported via the nodenv-aliases plugin. (And that's because the aliases are created by means of symlinks; ergo, as far as nodenv core is concerned, the exact-match name rules still apply.)

ljharb · 2017-10-05T17:52:24Z

nvm.sh

 nvm_find_nvmrc() {
  local dir
  dir="$(nvm_find_up '.nvmrc')"
  if [ -e "${dir}/.nvmrc" ]; then
    nvm_echo "${dir}/.nvmrc"
+  else
+    dir="$(nvm_find_up '.node-version')"


The semantic here then would be "if no nvmrc is found anywhere, look for a node-version" - i'd expect nvm_find_up to need to take multiple filenames.

In other words:

.nvmrc .node-version $PWD

in $PWD, I'd expect the node-version file to take precedence.

Whereas in:

.nvmrc .node-version .nvmrc $PWD

I'd expect the inner .nvmrc to take precedence.

ljharb · 2017-10-05T17:52:58Z

nvm.sh

    return 1
  fi
  read -r NVM_RC_VERSION < "${NVMRC_PATH}" || printf ''
  if [ ! -n "${NVM_RC_VERSION}" ]; then
-    nvm_err "Warning: empty .nvmrc file found at \"${NVMRC_PATH}\""
+    nvm_err "Warning: empty nvm file found at \"${NVMRC_PATH}\""


I'd either list both filenames here, or, track which filename it was found in, and use the correct filename here (ideal)

package-lock.json

CONTRIBUTING.md

ljharb · 2017-10-05T20:40:13Z

README.md

+
+$ echo "5.9" > .node-version
+
+They'll be loaded after `.nvmrc`, and can contain the same values as `.nvmrc`.


"same values" can't be correct; nvmrc supports both custom and built-in aliases, and node-version doesn't.

Also, nvmrc can have "iojs-" prefixes; but node-version can't.

Please offer replacement text for this. I'm not a nvmrc user.

How about:

Unlike .nvmrc, .node-version can not contain a “versionish” (an alias, like “node”, “iojs”, or a custom alias you’ve defined). .node-version can only have versions in the format of v1, v1.2, or v1.2.3 (the “v” is optional).

nvm.sh

ljharb · 2017-10-05T20:41:12Z

nvm.sh

+      if [ ! -f "${path}/${1}" ]; then
+        file="${path}/${1}"
+        echo $file
+        break 2


this seems like it will echo the file twice - instead, should this return 0?

It used to echo when it found it and now it echos when it finds it. I can return instead of breaking, but it didn't originally return.

hm, that would imply that it always echoed twice, which seems weird

nvm.sh

philsturgeon · 2017-10-10T21:11:07Z

I've updated this with your great suggestions. We'll see what happens with nodejs/version-management#13

brunolm · 2021-05-18T14:00:11Z

Will this ever be merged? I really want this to avoid having duplicated files because some people use nvs and others nvm

ljharb · 2023-08-22T04:07:33Z

Unfortunately @philsturgeon appears to have deleted the forked repo, so this PR can now never be recovered.

waldyrious · 2023-09-03T10:58:09Z

The commits can still be recovered from this repo's copy of the branch (that's why the diff in this PR is still visible). If you'd like I would be happy to recreate the PR, preserving authorship of the commits, so that it may be wrapped up and merged if/when nodejs/version-management#13 is resolved.

ljharb · 2023-09-03T14:47:28Z

the commits can, but the PR can’t.

waldyrious · 2023-09-04T11:16:07Z

I don't understand what you mean. The changes themselves can be recovered, just not on this particular PR — I think we agree on that. My question is, would you like a replica PR to be created from the commits of this one, or would you rather not?

ljharb · 2023-09-04T15:08:08Z

@waldyrious at this point no, let's wait until it's unblocked.

The issue I was referring to is that every PR makes an eternal, undeleteable git ref in a repo.

philsturgeon mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2017

Honor .node-version file #794

Open

Fall back to .node-version if it exists

39d701d

ljharb requested changes Oct 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

ljharb added the feature requests I want a new feature in nvm! label Oct 5, 2017

Note on how to actually run tests

e642610

philsturgeon mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2017

Agree on a standard format for a .node-version file? nodejs/version-management#13

Open

ljharb reviewed Oct 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

Phil Sturgeon added 2 commits October 5, 2017 16:46

Check for both files then up to the parent

1810d36

Lovely text improvements from @ljharb

7f14a12

madumlao mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2017

Fixate versions sharetribe/sharetribe#3155

Merged

shadowspawn mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2020

consider supporting .node-version spec #2292

Closed

UtkarshKr007 mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2020

Specify node version Netlify would use to deploy mn-pollinators/pollinator-facts#206

Merged

shadowspawn mentioned this pull request May 4, 2021

Consider adding note for nvm about how to use .node-version in a compatible way with nvm shadowspawn/node-version-usage#4

Closed

busticated mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Install notes for arm architectures particle-iot/particle-cli#615

Merged

6 tasks

ljharb closed this Aug 22, 2023

mcaskill mentioned this pull request May 14, 2024

Fall back to .node-version if it exists #3351

Draft

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fall back to .node-version if it exists #1625

Fall back to .node-version if it exists #1625

philsturgeon commented Oct 5, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ljharb left a comment

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

jasonkarns May 11, 2020

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon Oct 5, 2017

ljharb Oct 5, 2017

philsturgeon commented Oct 10, 2017

brunolm commented May 18, 2021

ljharb commented Aug 22, 2023

waldyrious commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ljharb commented Sep 3, 2023

waldyrious commented Sep 4, 2023

ljharb commented Sep 4, 2023


		For a little compatability with other node version managers, nvm will also sniff for `.node-version` files. They're the same as `.rmvrc`, they just share a common name.

		$ echo "5.9" > .node-version


		$ echo "5.9" > .node-version

		They'll be loaded after `.nvmrc`, and can contain the same values as `.nvmrc`.

Fall back to .node-version if it exists #1625

Fall back to .node-version if it exists #1625

Conversation

philsturgeon commented Oct 5, 2017 • edited Loading

ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

philsturgeon commented Oct 10, 2017

brunolm commented May 18, 2021

ljharb commented Aug 22, 2023

waldyrious commented Sep 3, 2023 • edited Loading

ljharb commented Sep 3, 2023

waldyrious commented Sep 4, 2023

ljharb commented Sep 4, 2023

philsturgeon commented Oct 5, 2017 •

edited

Loading

waldyrious commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading