Skip to content

docs(run): add --sequential #665

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

PeterCardenas
Copy link

The --help option for pnpm run gives a --sequential option but it is not shown in the documentation, so we do that in this PR.

Copy link

Review PR in StackBlitz Codeflow Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

Copy link

vercel bot commented May 14, 2025

@PeterCardenas is attempting to deploy a commit to the pnpm Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@PeterCardenas PeterCardenas force-pushed the add-sequential-docs branch from 54eebec to ac8c9a3 Compare May 14, 2025 22:11
Comment on lines +115 to +116
manner rather than concurrently. Note that there are no guarantees that the scripts
will run in topological sort order.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I noted this in #672, which is a dupe of this, but it'd be good to clarify here what the expected behaviour is in terms of order of execution when using this with pnpm run "/regex/". My understanding is that in that situation, it'll use the order that the scripts are defined in package.json.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that's fine but i don't think it should block merging this pr. the reason why there's a dupe im assuming is because we both were trying to find this in the docs but needed to look at the help to find it. the pre work for making something more substantive here would be to have tests in the pnpm repo asserting a particular behavior, because i don't think just looking at the implementation is good enough

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would probably disagree, I think it'd be better to properly figure out what should be documented first, rather than landing partial documentation that doesn't even acknowledge all the use-cases for it (nothing about this wording implies it can be used w/ pnpm run "/regex/", and in some ways even suggests its not for that due to the reference to topological sorting for pnpm -r).

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