chore(ui): don't depend on pnpm syntax

[avivkeller]

When we import @node-core/ui-components from api-docs-tooling, it can't contain non-npm syntax in it's package.json. Therefore, this PR removes the dependency on the workspace:* syntax.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	May 21, 2025 9:33pm

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR removes the non-npm workspace:* dependency and inlines the SimpleLocaleConfig type to eliminate reliance on an external interface.

• Inline SimpleLocaleConfig instead of using Pick<LocaleConfig> and drop the LocaleConfig import
• Remove "@node-core/website-i18n": "workspace:*" from devDependencies

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
packages/ui-components/types.ts	Inlined SimpleLocaleConfig properties and removed external import
packages/ui-components/package.json	Deleted workspace syntax for @node-core/website-i18n

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

packages/ui-components/package.json:50

• [nitpick] Since the workspace:* syntax was removed, pin @node-core/website-i18n to a fixed npm version (e.g., ^1.2.3) so consumers get a predictable release instead of missing the dependency entirely.

"@node-core/website-i18n": "workspace:*",

packages/ui-components/types.ts:21

• [nitpick] Consider adding a JSDoc comment to SimpleLocaleConfig explaining its shape and reminding maintainers to sync it with the upstream LocaleConfig interface to avoid divergence over time.

export type SimpleLocaleConfig = {

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.36%. Comparing base (87b1016) to head (40fd13c).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7771      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.34%   75.36%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          96       96              
  Lines        7858     7858              
  Branches      192      192              
==========================================
+ Hits         5921     5922       +1     
+ Misses       1936     1935       -1     
  Partials        1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

Lighthouse Results

URL	Performance	Accessibility	Best Practices	SEO	Report
/en	🟢 99	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 91	🔗
/en/about	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟠 82	🔗
/en/about/previous-releases	🟢 97	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟠 83	🔗
/en/download	🟢 98	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 91	🔗
/en/blog	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 96	🟢 92	🔗

[bmuenzenmeyer]

sometimes DRYness is the enemy

[dario-piotrowicz]

@avivkeller sorry for the silly question, but could you clarify how api-docs-tooling imports the package? 🙏

[avivkeller]

It's not a silly question, we are still trying to figure that out in nodejs/api-docs-tooling#236. Currently, in nodejs/api-docs-tooling#273, I'm using a package I made for us to import @node-core/rehype-shiki

[dario-piotrowicz]

It's not a silly question, we are still trying to figure that out in nodejs/api-docs-tooling#236. Currently, in nodejs/api-docs-tooling#273, I'm using a package I made for us to import @node-core/rehype-shiki

I see, thanks a lot Aviv 🙂

Personally I would consider the option to publish the package as @AugustinMauroy suggested.

Having to remove pnpm workspace:* dependencies from the package.json seems like a hack to me 🤔
(besides the extra complexity and maintenance burden, also as far as I can tell if non-permalink repository links are used there isn't currently any check to accidentally prevent the re-introduction of workspace:* dependencies and similar ones that would break dependent packages)

So all things considered I think I am not a huge fan of the approach 🤔, however I can live with it if everyone else is happy with it 🙂 (also considering that you're already using it for rehype-shiki)

[avivkeller]

I recommend you raise your concerns in the dedicated issue.

This PR is intended to work for npm installations of this package, which was one of the goals we had in mind when migrating to the monorepo. That's always something we can change, however, I think that's a discussion for the other issue.

[dario-piotrowicz]

I recommend you raise your concerns in the dedicated issue.

This PR is intended to work for npm installations of this package, which was one of the goals we had in mind when migrating to the monorepo. That's always something we can change, however, I think that's a discussion for the other issue.

I see, sorry for the extra noise then 😓