-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Android increments are wrong when using prereleases #11
Comments
o/ I just tried releasing a prerelease again which reminded me of this issue. Any pointers on how I might help resolve this? |
I think it's related to how you are using coerce here. If I understand correctly, coerce will force the version into semver and will drop the prerelease tag. Still researching, but it seems we'd need to also get the prerelease tags with Although I am not sure what versionCode android expects with prereleases, and expo does not let me include the "-beta.0" string in the ios buildNumber! |
I suppose the build numbers should just increment and the version should remain unaltered except for the first time it runs, where it should be bumped to the next version. The challenge there is remembering that this happened I suppose, unless you can use the package.json version to verify. |
That would make sense to me. Although just to make it clear, I am not able to upload a build to play store if it contains the same version code as one already uploaded to the play store. Even though the expo version is different. My use case is making a beta build for certain closed track or internal testers. And if 0.8.7 is already on the play store, then "0.8.7-beta.0" will not be allowed to be uploaded. By version I mean // app.json
{
"expo": {
"version": "0.8.7-beta.0",
"android": {
"versionCode": 370000807
}
}
} |
Description of the bug
See #10
To Reproduce
npx standard-version --release-as prerelease
Expected behavior
Android increments to be
+1
Actual behavior
Something like
1.1.0-0
.Additional context
It's probably related to the semver parsing, but I'll have to investigate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: