Skip to content

fix(scaffolds): install the config packages and wp-phpcs from their registries - #78

Merged
AnuragVasanwala merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/registry-specs
Oct 1, 2026
Merged

AnuragVasanwala merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/registry-specs

Conversation

@aryanjasala

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rtcamp/eslint-config, @rtcamp/stylelint-config and @rtcamp/tailwind-config are on npm at 1.1.0, and rtcamp/wp-phpcs and rtcamp/wp-phpstan are on Packagist at 1.0.1, so the scaffolds no longer need the workarounds:

  • lint/eslint, lint/stylelint, setup/tailwind and the setup skill ask for the config packages at ^1.1.0 instead of the npm/* git branches.
  • lint/phpcs/core and lint/phpcs/full no longer add a repositories entry for rtCamp/wp-phpcs. The allow-plugins wiring stays, and the setup skill and the examples doc say so.
  • The two 2.0.0 CHANGELOG entries that described the old behaviour now describe this one, since 2.0.0 is not on npm yet.

The npm/* branches stay, so projects that still install from git keep working. The rtcamp/wp-dev-tools repository entries stay too, since that package is not on Packagist.

Merge before @rtcamp/wp-tooling 2.0.0 is published, so 2.0.0 ships with these specs.

Testing

  • npm run check: lint clean, 1,407 tests passing
  • In an empty project, wp-tooling add for lint/eslint, lint/stylelint, setup/tailwind, lint/phpcs/full and lint/phpstan reports ^1.1.0 for the config packages and only the allow-plugins wiring for PHPCS
  • npm install of the three config packages at ^1.1.0 resolves from npm
  • composer require --dev rtcamp/wp-phpcs:^1.0 rtcamp/wp-phpstan:^1.0 with no repositories entry resolves both at v1.0.1 from Packagist, and phpcs -i lists rtCampWP and rtCampWP-Basic

…egistries

The config packages are on npm at 1.1.0 and rtcamp/wp-phpcs is on Packagist,
so the scaffolds and the setup skill ask for @rtcamp/*-config ^1.1.0 instead
of the npm/* git branches, and lint/phpcs/core and lint/phpcs/full no longer
add a repositories entry for rtCamp/wp-phpcs. The 2.0.0 CHANGELOG entries that
described the old behaviour are corrected, since 2.0.0 is not published yet.
@AnuragVasanwala
AnuragVasanwala merged commit b68f150 into main Oct 1, 2026
12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants