Echo | Generic static analysis framework | Code Analyzer library

First, this error message is indeed expected on Jan. 11th, 2022.
See "Improving Git protocol security on GitHub".

January 11, 2022 Final brownout.

This is the full brownout period where we’ll temporarily stop accepting the deprecated key and signature types, ciphers, and MACs, and the unencrypted Git protocol.
This will help clients discover any lingering use of older keys or old URLs.

Second, check your package.json dependencies for any git:// URL, as in this example, fixed in this PR.

As noted by Jörg W Mittag:

There was a 4-month warning.
The entire Internet has been moving away from unauthenticated, unencrypted protocols for a decade, it's not like this is a huge surprise.

Personally, I consider it less an "issue" and more "detecting unmaintained dependencies".

Plus, this is still only the brownout period, so the protocol will only be disabled for a short period of time, allowing developers to discover the problem.

The permanent shutdown is not until March 15th.

As in actions/checkout issue 14, you can add as a first step:

You missed adding this in your eslint.json file.

node-fetch v3 recently stopped support for the require way of importing it in favor of ES Modules. You'll need to use ESM imports now, like:

I'm unable to reproduce your problem in my local environment, so I think it is a problem probably related to some other package in your project.

As suggested on this issue, you should try deleting your package-lock.json and generating it again with npm.

Imo, it's a bug in Paramiko. It does not handle correctly absence of server-sig-algs extension on the server side.

Try disabling rsa-sha2-* on Paramiko side altogether:

I've suggested "**/*.{js,vue}": ["npm run lint:js:fix"], first of, lint:js:fix is subjective and up to you. This is what Kent C Dodds is using, so I'm just naming it in the same way.

But you could totally have lint:watermelon-potato-hehe instead, doesn't matter.

Now, about your propositions:

1. "**/*.{vue,js,jsx,ts,tsx}": "npm run lint", this one is targeting more extensions, which is totally fine. You may not really use .tsx/.jsx since it's not really popular among Vue devs.
   About .ts itself, it may probably work good enough (maybe you'll need to add some plugins to your ESlint configuration). I'm not into TS so I can't really help on this one but it's out of the husky/lint-staged scope anyway.
   Last time I started a Vue3 project, I've used Vitesse which has some nice defaults with TS, this may be a good start for you maybe.

As for the second part, since I like to setup my own ESlint config, with some simple and well documented API, we're using eslint --ext .js,.vue --fix. That way I'm sure of what is happening and how to troubleshoot it if needed.
vue-cli-service lint may be a good default package aimed towards Vue with some defaults, I'm not sure what's inside it and even if it's probably just an ESlint with some baked-in configuration, again we prefer to make our own Vue configuration with vanilla ESlint.

So yeah, if you need to go fast, use vue-cli-service lint for some quick linting, if you want to have a better flow in your project and want to fine grain your config, use vanilla ESlint, you'll get less trouble overall IMO.

1. "**/*.{vue,js,jsx,ts,tsx}": "eslint --ext .vue,.js,.jsx,.ts,.tsx --fix". On the right side, we globally have the same lint:js:fix scripts but with additional extensions.

So, you may ask why are we even writing the extensions on the left side for lint-staged and on the right side for lint:js:fix? I'd answer that those are not really needed on the right side (AFAIK), because lint-staged will only run the command to the left list of extensions.
Here, we wanted to be more explicit about the exact extensions we're targeting and also, it enables you to run npm run lint:js:fix in your CLI at any given point without getting errors on files ESlint is not handling (.txt, .json, .md, .jpg etc...).
So it could maybe be removed (not sure), fastest way to be sure is to try!

1. "**/*.{vue,js,jsx,ts,tsx}": "eslint --fix", this one may work fine as explained in the previous paragraph. Didn't tried it myself thought.

Regarding .html, you should not have a lot of those in your Vue project. You could use the W3C validator to check for any errors if you really need it.
If you're speaking about your HTML in the template tags in your .vue files, those will be ESlint'ed properly. If you setup a Prettier on top of it, you will also get some nice auto-formatting which is really awesome to work with (once your team has agreed on a .prettierrc config).

Regarding .json files, those are not handled by ESlint. ESlint is only for JavaScript-ish files. If you want to lint/format your .json or even any other extensions at all, you can aim towards NPM, find a package that suits your team's needs and add it to your chain like "**/*.json": ["npm run lint-my-json-please"] and you should be good!

At the end, husky + lint-staged are not doing anything special really. They are tools to automate what you could write yourself in a CLI, so if it's working when done manually and you're happy with the result, you can put it in your config but you need to first found what the proper package and it's configuration.

In your package.json, you could have the following

Huh. This surprised me a bit.

composer is correctly reporting the PHP version it's using. The problem is that it's not using the "correct" PHP interpreter.

The issue arises because of how you are installing composer.

Apparently by doing apk add composer another version of PHP gets installed (you can find it on /usr/bin/php8, this is the one on version 8.0.14).

Instead of letting apk install composer for you, you can do it manually. There is nothing much to install it in any case, no need to go through the package manager. Particularly since PHP has not been installed via the package manager on your base image.

I've just removed the line containing composer from the apk add --update command, and added this somewhere below:

Update: These issues have been fixed, and a patched version of jdeps is available as part of the early access build for JDK 18 at: http://jdk.java.net/18/ (starting from build 26)

Turning my comments into an answer. There seem to be 3 bugs going on here:

1. The MultiReleaseException seems to be because jdeps can not handle classes in different jars that have the same name, such as module-info.class, but are stored in a different META-INF/versions/xxx directory. (JDK-8277165)
2. The fact that this exception is sometimes suddenly not occuring seems to be the result of a race condition in the code that checks for the above; classes of the same name having multiple versions. (JDK-8277166)
3. The MultiReleaseException is missing it's exception message since it's thrown as part of an asynchronous task, which wraps it in an ExecutionException, which then leads to jdeps not reporting the exception correctly. (JDK-8277123)

As for a workaround, I don't think there's a good one at this point, except maybe for editing all the jars on the class path so that they put the module-info.class in the same META-INF/versions/xxx directory (but, this might have other consequences as well, so you probably don't want to run with the edited jars, and only use them for jdeps).

I suggest with bash: