Conversation
|
No vulnerability summary was generated for this pull request. All finding details can be found in the DryRun Security Dashboard. |
dogboat
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2025
blakeaowens
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
Going to merge with two approvals since this is technically a dependency upgrade |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
the new
docsearchdependencies got removed from thepackage-lock.jsonfile during the release due to conflict resolution. When developing locally, the commandnpm run devis used, which reads frompackage.jsonand then updates thepackage-lock.jsonfile. However, when docs are deployed for production, thepackage-lock.jsonfile is used to avoid pulling in any upgrades.The search function is busted because it is trying to reference packages that are not installed