fix(blueprint-web): upgrade blueprint-web packages#4224
fix(blueprint-web): upgrade blueprint-web packages#4224
Conversation
WalkthroughDependency version ranges updated in package.json for devDependencies and peerDependencies: @box/blueprint-web, @box/blueprint-web-assets, and @box/item-icon. No source code modifications or API changes. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR/Issue comments)Type Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
yarn.lockis excluded by!**/yarn.lock,!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
package.json(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)
- GitHub Check: lint_test_build
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
- GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (2)
package.json (2)
135-135: @box/item-icon devDependency bumped — LGTM.No concerns for local development and storybook.
303-303: Peer min bump for @box/item-icon may exclude existing consumers.Moving from ^0.17.0 to ^0.17.13 raises the minimum. If not strictly required, keep the lower bound to avoid forcing consumer upgrades.
- "@box/item-icon": "^0.17.13", + "@box/item-icon": ">=0.17.0 <0.18",If the bump is required due to APIs/assets used, please note it as a breaking change in the release notes.
|
we need to review the blueprint modals since there's an issue with padding. tbh I think we should update the ContentExplorer modals to use the new design |
Summary by CodeRabbit