-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49.2k
Closed
Description
When I run the devtools, I get the update-notifier
message:
╭────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ │
│ Update available 4.4.0 → 4.9.0 │
│ Run npm i react-devtools to update │
│ │
╰────────────────────────────────────────╯
I appreciate the goal of this message. However, the suggested command to run is incorrect for my repo. We use yarn, not npm. And we use a monorepo. This is confusing for devs who are new to the repo.
Would it be possible to suppress the update-notifier
message? The team that manages usage of react-devtools in our tool chain is happy to stay on top of updates themselves.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Type
Projects
Milestone
Relationships
Development
Select code repository
Activity
bvaughn commentedon Oct 20, 2020
This message is not somethingI am wrong about this. Looks like we do intentionally notify of an update. I was unaware of that. 😆react-devtools
logs. Pretty sure this is just something thenpm
command does to let you know that you aren't running the latest minor/bugfix version within your current major.Looks like this was added some time ago in facebook/react-devtools#695
Would you be interested in contributing a PR that uses the
updateCheckInterval
param to put a delay between these checks? Maybe once a week or something?recurx commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Hey @NickHeiner ! If you have not started, can I give it a try? Seems pretty straight-forward to add the check. Should we customise the message too (something more generic) ?
bvaughn commentedon Oct 21, 2020
I don't think anyone has started on this, so please feel free @recurx.
recurx commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Thanks @bvaughn .

updateCheckInterval
by default is 1 day. Changing this to 7 days. Should I also change the message to just this:bvaughn commentedon Oct 21, 2020
I think the message is fine. Any reason to change it?
recurx commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Was just wondering about this sentence in the issue -
bvaughn commentedon Oct 21, 2020
I see.
We could add update the wording to include
yarn
too I guess. Not sure we should try to cover all possible use cases (like monorepos). The main purpose of this message is to notify people that an update is available, but I think the added action of "run npm i react-devtools" is a nice prompt.recurx commentedon Oct 21, 2020
The 'how to install' is a nice prompt. But there would be many different ways people would be using

react-devtools
. For example if I'm using it globally, I'll have to add a-g
, yarn users would need to doyarn add react-devtools
. We can do something like this:There might be more use-cases. Let me know what you think.
bvaughn commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Like I said, I don't think we need to cover all use case 😄 It's nice to mention the most common case or two. That looks fine.
NickHeiner commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Yes, @recurx, thanks for pointing out my concern about the message being incorrect. 😄 Changing the message interval doesn't really address the reason I opened this issue.
I agree that it's impractical to cover all use cases. And, frankly, for my users, it's not great to have a message that says something like "use yarn or use npm", because devs in my repo must use yarn.
The ideal solution from my end (and one that should be very easy to implement) is simply to provide an option to suppress showing this update notifier entirely. That option could default to
false
, and most people wouldn't need to know it existed.gaearon commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Practically speaking, developers in your repo will encounter many libraries that say
npm i something
in their instructions. So they need to be aware anyway thatnpm i something
should be substituted byyarn add something
in general in your repo. I don't think this is a critical issue in this case.1 remaining item
bvaughn commentedon Oct 21, 2020
While it's not the outcome you're advocating for, I think it is still relevant to what prompted you to open the issue– since it reduces how frequently you'll see this (non-actionable) prompt.
If you would like to submit a PR that adds the ability to permanently opt out of this, you'd be welcome to. It doesn't look like that's something the library we're using provides support for though– and I suspect it's an uncommon enough want that not many people would be interested in doing the leg work but maybe I'm wrong.
NickHeiner commentedon Oct 21, 2020
Yes, I agree that reducing the frequency reduces the impact of the issue. 😄
Perhaps I will submit that PR! Thanks for the invitation.
minshinkhant commentedon Oct 23, 2020
Hi, is this issue still opened?
shaiguelman commentedon Oct 23, 2020
Hi, if possible I would like to tackle this issue. Please let me know if it is still open. Thanks!
NickHeiner commentedon Oct 23, 2020
I will hold off to give the other commenters a chance to work on this.
AmeyaPhadnis-2019H1030012G commentedon Oct 24, 2020
Hi, is this issue still open for contribution, I am new to the open-source community and looking forward to opportunities to contribute. Thanks in advance!
gabrielsanttana commentedon Nov 24, 2020
As @bvaughn said, it would be cool to mention the two most common cases, which in this case would be for
npm
andyarn
.abhishekdubey1 commentedon Nov 28, 2020
Hi, is this issue still open for contribution as I intend to work on this?
CobyCoding commentedon Dec 12, 2020
I believe this issue has been fixed.
rakesh456 commentedon Dec 14, 2020
Is this issue fixed?
mynameisankit commentedon Jan 23, 2021
Is the issue still unresolved or fixed? I would like to work on this
bvaughn commentedon Jan 25, 2021
I'm going to close this issue because I think the current state of this feature is fine and I have no plans to change it. If someone would like to submit a PR+proposal for a new behavior though, I will review it.