refactor: rename blog-specific terminology to generic content naming#31
Conversation
…conventions across core, and react packages
haroonwaves
force-pushed
the
refactor/naming
branch
from
01a3e00 to
8474bff
Compare
Deploying blog-kit with
|
| Latest commit: |
8474bff
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://23a9dd8e.blog-kit.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://refactor-naming.blog-kit.pages.dev |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 01a3e009da
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| { | ||
| "name": "@haroonwaves/blog-kit-core", | ||
| "version": "1.4.0", | ||
| "version": "2.0.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bumping this package to 2.0.0 (and similarly @haroonwaves/blog-kit-react) while app/package.json still depends on ^1.3.1 causes the workspace app to resolve the old published packages instead of the renamed local APIs. In a fresh install this means the docs app no longer validates the new Content* surface and can mask regressions introduced by this refactor; update the app dependency ranges (or use workspace:*) in the same change to keep integration coverage intact.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
No description provided.