feat(version): add user-defined build metadata to bumped packages

[rrhodes]

Description

Adding support for SemVer build metadata to Lerna version and publish commands.

• New --build-metadata string option added to Lerna version and publish commands.
• Build metadata validated against SemVer specification and applied to new versions.
• Build metadata is applicable to both independent and fixed versioning.
• Metadata functionality added to core/conventional-commits
• Only case where --build-metadata is not permitted is when --canary is also used in publish command.

Motivation and Context

This resolves issue #2545, which myself and others have expressed an interest in.

How Has This Been Tested?

Unit and integration testing provided in this PR. Tests should cover all new and altered logic. If that's not the case, let me know and I will be happy to fix that.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[rrhodes]

Any feedback on this PR would be fully appreciated - this is my first contribution to Lerna.

Travis CI check failed, but it appears it has failed recently on all branches - including main.

[rrhodes]

Hello @evocateur, you're the most recently active member of the Lerna team I've found reviewing PRs. May you advise me who would be best to review this?

[rrhodes]

Hello @evocateur, may I be granted approval to run the repo workflows, please? Any feedback on this PR would be appreciated.

[rrhodes]

Hey @gigabo, @hzoo, @xtuc, and @ndelangen, sorry to ping you all out the blue. I see you also belong to the Lerna org. This PR's been lingering for a while now - any feedback would be appreciated, please.

[rrhodes]

Hi Lerna org members (@evocateur, @gigabo, @hzoo, @xtuc, and @ndelangen), anyone available to review this PR, please? Or alternatively is there anyone else I should request reviews this?

[molivertsla]

@evocateur, @gigabo, @hzoo, @xtuc, and @ndelangen - also interested if we could get eyes on this please. If not, steps forward to add this functionality. Thank you!

[rrhodes]

Hi @jeffbcross, this PR was opened a while ago, before a change of ownership for the Lerna project. I've resolved recent conflicts against the main branch and would love feedback on this work if you may recommend any reviewers, please?

[JamesHenry]

Hi @rrhodes thanks so much for your patience, I'm sorry it sat in limbo for so long.

Please could we do the following:

• squash all the work so far down into a single commit and rebase against the latest main (at that point I will start reviewing)
• add proper e2e coverage via the relatively new approach (in this repo that is) of publishing the real lerna CLI to a locally running npm registry. You can see plenty of prior art in the relevant e2e/version project and you can see full instructions on running e2e tests in CONTRIBUTING.md

[JamesHenry]

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the e2e stuff once you have read those instructions

[rrhodes]

Hi @JamesHenry, no trouble, thanks for reviewing this. I may struggle to look into this in the coming weeks - currently in the process of moving house as well as all the usual Christmas fun at this time of year - but I can let you know when I've had an opportunity to review further.

[rrhodes]

Hi @JamesHenry, new E2E tests for the build metadata functionality added now.

[JamesHenry]

@rrhodes Thank you, this is a great (re)starting point now!

Initial issue in CI:

• The format check is failing.

Broader refactoring point:

Please could you not create a new package - the lerna codebase (we inherited) already has so, so many small packages, and we are looking to dramatically reduce that over the coming months, so we don't we to add more debt to that work.

I think core/conventional-commits would be the best existing place to house this new build metadata logic and share it with the version command as it already depends on that package.

Many thanks again!

[rrhodes]

Hey @JamesHenry, I agree, there are a lot of packages and I think it's great there's plans to reduce these. I've revised my PR now with your recommendation in mind to use core/conventional-commits.

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit ab1dff5. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

---

✅ Successfully ran 10 targets

• nx prepare-for-e2e e2e-run-task-runner
• nx run integration:integration --ci --maxWorkers=2
• nx run integration:integration --ci --maxWorkers=2 --testPathIgnorePatterns=lerna-import.spec.ts
• nx run-many --t e2e --parallel=1
• nx run-many -t build --parallel=3
• nx run-many -t lint --parallel=3
• nx run-many -t test --parallel=3 --ci --maxWorkers=2
• nx run-many -t test --parallel=3 --ci --maxWorkers=2 --testTimeout=45000 --testPathIgnorePatterns=create-symlink.spec.ts --testPathIgnorePatterns=get-two-factor-auth-required.spec.ts --testPathIgnorePatterns=version-lifecycle-scripts.spec.ts --testPathIgnorePatterns=version-allow-branch.spec.ts --testPathIgnorePatterns=version-message.spec.ts --tes...
• nx-cloud record -- npx nx format:check
• nx-cloud record -- npx nx workspace-lint

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[JamesHenry]

Thanks again @rrhodes - sorry, we needed to get the major codebase refactor over the line before addressing this one.

To save you having to try and figure it all out I have gone ahead and applied the rebase for you.

Once this is green we can get this merged!

[rrhodes]

Awesome, thanks @JamesHenry for your review and help toward this, great to see it release. 🚀