Skip to content

docs: follow up on the review notes from #77 - #80

Merged
aryanjasala merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/review-followups
Nov 10, 2026
Merged

aryanjasala merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/review-followups

Conversation

@aryanjasala

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What this PR does

Picks up Aditya's non-blocking notes on #77, which merged without them so the 1.0.1 release could go out tonight. Docs and comments only, no behaviour change.

Changes

  • webpack.blocks.config.js and docs/hmr.md said the wrapper exists because webpack-dev-server v5, pinned through overrides, rejects the object-form proxy wp-scripts emitted. Since fix(deps): update @wordpress/scripts to 37 and refresh stale npm overrides #77 that pin is gone and wp-scripts 37 runs webpack-dev-server 6 with an array-form proxy. The wrapper still removes it, for a different reason: the /build proxy target is hardcoded to localhost:8887 (the theme's default port), so with this plugin's 8886 or any custom BLOCKS_DEV_SERVER_PORT it points at another server. The comments and docs now say that.
  • docs/internal/maintenance.md gets a Dependency updates row for @wordpress/theme 4.0.0: why it is a direct dev dependency (the @wordpress/stylelint-config peer that legacy-peer-deps does not install), and how to bump it.

How I verified

  • Checked @wordpress/scripts 37.0.0's config/webpack.config.js: the dev server's proxy is [ { context: [ '/build' ], target: 'http://localhost:8887', ... } ].
  • package-lock.json on main resolves webpack-dev-server 6.1.0, with no override.
  • npm view @wordpress/stylelint-config@27 peerDependencies lists @wordpress/theme as ^3.0.0 || ^4.0.0.
  • node --check webpack.blocks.config.js; only comments changed in it.

Reviewer notes

The split @wordpress/theme versions in the lockfile and the older scaffold requirements are a separate compatibility check; tracked in #79.

@aryanjasala
aryanjasala merged commit 7612cd0 into main Nov 10, 2026
17 checks passed
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.

2 participants