• OsrsNeedsF2P
      51·
      4 months ago

      Updating a library in a monorepo means copying it all over and hoping the lib update didn’t break someone else’s code. Whereas updating a library normally would never break anything, and you can let people update on their own cadence

      • LyD@lemmy.ca
        1·
        4 months ago

        I set up a monorepo that had a library used by several different projects. It was my first foray into DevOps and we had this problem.

        I decided to version and release the library whenever a change was merged to it on the trunk. Other projects would depend on one of those versions and could be updated at their own pace. There was a lot of hidden complexity and many gotchas so we needed some rules to make it functional. It worked good once those were sorted out.

        One rule we needed was that changes to the library had to be merged and released prior to any downstream project that relied on those changes. This made a lot of sense from certain perspectives but it was annoying developers. They couldn’t simply open a single PR containing both changes. This had a huge positive impact on the codebase over time IMO but that’s a different story.

        How is it done at Meta? Always compile and depend on latest? Is the library copied into different projects, or did you just mean you had to update several projects whenever the library’s interfaces changed?

        • OsrsNeedsF2P
          5·
          4 months ago

          At Meta, if it’s an internal library, the team that maintains it updates all the code to use the latest version (that’s the advantage of a monorepo). As an aside, if your project broke because someone else touched your code, that’s on you for not writing better tests.

          If it’s an external library, it either has a team responsible for it that does the above, otherwise it probably didn’t get updated since the day it was added.