Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(deps): Migrate to react 19 #15358

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

chore(deps): Migrate to react 19 #15358

wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

0xTxbi
Copy link
Member

@0xTxbi 0xTxbi commented Jan 3, 2025

Description

This PR introduces an upgrade of the unlock monorepo to react v19.

Issues

Fixes #
Refs #15356

Checklist:

  • 1 PR, 1 purpose: my Pull Request applies to a single purpose
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have updated the docs to reflect my changes if applicable
  • I have added tests (and stories for frontend components) that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • If my code involves visual changes, I am adding applicable screenshots to this thread

@0xTxbi 0xTxbi requested a review from julien51 January 3, 2025 12:21
@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla-signed label Jan 3, 2025
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 3, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

2 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
unlock-static-site ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Jan 9, 2025 7:23am
unlock-storybook ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Jan 9, 2025 7:23am

Copy link
Member

@julien51 julien51 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just one comment. it looks like we change the return type when we go from => () (returns whatever is in ()) to => {} (requires an explicit return or it would return undefined)

Thx!

@0xTxbi
Copy link
Member Author

0xTxbi commented Jan 6, 2025

Just one comment. it looks like we change the return type when we go from => () (returns whatever is in ()) to => {} (requires an explicit return or it would return undefined)

Thx!

absolutely, good catch!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants