Skip to content

Conversation

@shubham220420
Copy link
Contributor

Progresses #8755

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

  • Migrates utils/deep-set to object/deep-set.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

  • Yes
  • No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

  • Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
  • Test/benchmark generation
  • Documentation (including examples)
  • Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}


@stdlib-js/reviewers

This commit removes the `deepset` symbol from the `@stdlib/utils`
namespace due to a package migration.

BREAKING CHANGE: remove `deepset`

To migrate, users should access the same symbol via the
`@stdlib/object` namespace.

Ref: stdlib-js#8755
This commit removes `@stdlib/utils/deep-set` in favor of
`@stdlib/object/deep-set`.

BREAKING CHANGE: remove `utils/deep-set`

To migrate, users should update their require/import paths to use
`@stdlib/utils/deep-set` which provides the same API and implementation.

Ref: stdlib-js#8755
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Jan 6, 2026
@Neerajpathak07 Neerajpathak07 added the release: Major Breaking change requiring a new major release. label Jan 6, 2026
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
namespace/alias2pkg $\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
namespace $\color{red}39324/39427$
$\color{green}+99.74%$
$\color{green}112/112$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{red}2/11$
$\color{green}+18.18%$
$\color{red}39324/39427$
$\color{green}+99.74%$
namespace/pkg2alias $\color{green}100/100$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}100/100$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
namespace/pkg2related $\color{green}100/100$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}10/10$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}100/100$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
namespace/pkg2standalone $\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
namespace/standalone2pkg $\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}7/7$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}1/1$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}95/95$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
utils $\color{red}43367/59110$
$\color{green}+73.37%$
$\color{red}725/765$
$\color{green}+94.77%$
$\color{red}22/490$
$\color{green}+4.49%$
$\color{red}43367/59110$
$\color{green}+73.37%$
utils/deep-get $\color{green}414/414$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}44/44$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}6/6$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}414/414$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
utils/deep-pluck $\color{green}285/285$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}25/25$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}3/3$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}285/285$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
utils $\color{red}43367/59110$
$\color{green}+73.37%$
$\color{red}725/765$
$\color{green}+94.77%$
$\color{red}22/490$
$\color{green}+4.49%$
$\color{red}43367/59110$
$\color{green}+73.37%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

@Neerajpathak07
Copy link
Member

@shubham220420 The extra commit updating the variable path should not have been added. All the paths are supposed to be updated in the 2nd commit itself. The reason being it's easier to keep the changelog clean after every major release.
I suggest going through this once:- https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/docs/contributing/moving_packages.md

@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Jan 6, 2026

@shubham220420 Neeraj is correct. This PR is invalid. As such, I will go ahead and close.

@kgryte kgryte closed this Jan 6, 2026
@kgryte kgryte added Invalid Invalid question, issue, or pull request. and removed Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. labels Jan 6, 2026
@shubham220420
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shubham220420 The extra commit updating the variable path should not have been added. All the paths are supposed to be updated in the 2nd commit itself. The reason being it's easier to keep the changelog clean after every major release. I suggest going through this once:- https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/docs/contributing/moving_packages.md

yes sir I've read it but since that change was required so I added that commit,
also regarding the jobs failure the affected examples job is not failing because of any changes made in this Pr
The afffected_tests job is failing because there is a import change required in repl but since it is told not to make changes in that what should I do?

@shubham220420
Copy link
Contributor Author

he extra commit updating the variable path should not have been added. All the paths are supposed to be updated in the 2nd commit itself. The reason being it's easier to keep the changelog clean a

If it is valid can I open the PR without that extra commit?

@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Jan 6, 2026

@shubham220420 Well, before performing a migration, you could first resolve the lint errors in the utils/deep-set package.

The test failures are likely due to you not updating all relevant paths.

Note, however, that migrations need to happen sequentially in order to avoid merge conflicts. Hence, only one migration PR can be open at a time. This is another reason why the upstream issue is labeled for maintainers.

@shubham220420
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shubham220420 Well, before performing a migration, you could first resolve the lint errors in the utils/deep-set package.

The test failures are likely due to you not updating all relevant paths.

Note, however, that migrations need to happen sequentially in order to avoid merge conflicts. Hence, only one migration PR can be open at a time. This is another reason why the upstream issue is labeled for maintainers.

okay sir as you say

@shubham220420 shubham220420 deleted the shubham2204-migration branch January 6, 2026 14:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Invalid Invalid question, issue, or pull request. release: Major Breaking change requiring a new major release.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants