[Bug?]: yarn scaffold script shows 404 when fetching packages about redwood HOT 9 CLOSED

Do you know how you have installed yarn on your system? If you are using corepack (which is built into new versions of node) you could run:

corepack prepare yarn@stable --activate

That would switch your global version of yarn to the latest stable version (v4) rather than the old v1. This might help with this issue and might be a general improvement regardless. Although if you have a need to stay on yarn v1 then we can try something else.

from redwood.

Hey @byhow 👋

One thing that might be good to try before we dig deeper into where/why this particular 404 is happening is to try clearing any yarn cache. With yarn v1 I think the docs list the command as:

yarn cache clean

I have my fingers crossed that trying again after cleaning the cache might work?

from redwood.

Hi @Josh-Walker-GM , thanks for the reply!

I've tried yarn cache clean couple times, and the issue still persists. If I follow the link from the logs to where concat-stream is supposed to be, for me it shows 404 not found for that tarball.

I can opt-in for other package manager if possible to test out the create command. I only did it with yarn@v1 following what the documentation suggest. I am open to test out other ways to see if I can reproduce this.

from redwood.

Hi @byhow am following up here to see if this is still an issue or if you got it resolved.

from redwood.

Hi @dthyresson, thanks for the reply. Yes I am still facing the same issue. Do you recommend an alternative way of scaffolding the project?

from redwood.

Hi @Josh-Walker-GM, appreciate the pointer. I am able to run this now with yarn stable (v4) ! I think it might be something related to some issues in yarn v1. I was under the assumption that the scaffold runs with yarn v1.22.x only with the doc specs here. Thanks for walking me through this yarn issue :)

from redwood.

Okay awesome so this is solved now yeah?

You said the docs made it seem like we wanted you to use v1 because of the way we listed the dependency? If so we can look at updating that to be clearer for sure!

from redwood.

@Josh-Walker-GM Yes, this is solved :) Trying out the framework rn and it looks great.

You said the docs made it seem like we wanted you to use v1 because of the way we listed the dependency? If so we can look at updating that to be clearer for sure!

Maybe it is just me lol, since v4 is indeed > v1.22 so... I can make the update too if the docs are public. I think limiting the yarn version to stable is good for dependency maintenance, but maybe leaving the options for v1 or stable is good too, up to you folks.

from redwood.

Thanks! We'd always love to hear any feedback you've got while you try redwood out. The forums here are the best place for general feedback. Of course any bugs are best as GitHub issues.

Our docs are in this repo in the top level docs directory. Feel free to make a PR with any suggestions and we can iterate on any changes that might be needed.

I think we probably aim to keep supporting yarn v1 since a lot of people still have that version globally. Inside of a project we do require the stable version of yarn and this is preferably handled by corepack automatically with you having to do any work at that stage.

from redwood.