Proposal: Communicate used tailwind version

[nidico]

I wonder if it would make sense to output the used tailwind version to

a) the generated elm files (as a comment)
b) the build process output of npx elm-tailwind-modules.

Maybe together with a hash of the used tailwind.config.js file?

My motivation behind the proposal is that I just noticed by accident that I'm still using tailwind v2 on a development machine (tailwindcss is installed manually there at the moment).

[nidico]

While looking at this: Should elm-tailwind-modules version 0.4.0 only be used with tailwindcss version 3.1.6, as ^3.1.6 is listed in devDependencies in package.json (and not with e.g. tailwindcss 3.2.1)?

(I'm a bit confused, as running npm i --save-dev elm-tailwind-modules pulls tailwindcss version 2.2.19, not 3.1.6...)

[matheus23]

elm-tailwind-modules's devDependencies are purely for when you check out the repository and want to develop with the project.
You'll see the actual requirements for users of the package in dependencies and peerDependencies, the latter of which contains the tailwindcss bounds.

[matheus23]

As for the proposal of communicating the tailwind version, that's a great idea :)

I don't think the tailwind config hash is going to be super meaningful to the user, but maybe just printing back the resolved file name for the config may be helpful.

[nidico]

elm-tailwind-modules's devDependencies are purely for when you check out the repository and want to develop with the project. You'll see the actual requirements for users of the package in dependencies and peerDependencies, the latter of which contains the tailwindcss bounds.

Thanks for the explanation! So does the tailwindcss ^2.0.2 peerDependency mean users shold use tailwindcss 2.0.2 and not e.g. 3.x? Looking at the docs about peerDependencies doesn't really help much. I'm a bit confused, as 0.4.0 added support for tailwindcss v3...

[matheus23]

I'm getting confused here as well. I guess tailwind version 3.0.0 isn't covered by the version bound ^2.0.2. I guess it should actually be something like ^2.0.2 || ^3.1.6 or so.

[nidico]

I'm getting confused here as well. I guess tailwind version 3.0.0 isn't covered by the version bound ^2.0.2. I guess it should actually be something like ^2.0.2 || ^3.1.6 or so.

Yeah, this would be sufficient until tailwind <4 is released. Old tailwind docs state that tailwind follows semantic versioning, so this should be fine.

[matheus23]

I think this should be covered now.

[nidico]

I think this should be covered now.

I don't see how... In my case I can't find the string 3.2.4 (the used tailwindcss version) in either of the generated elm files or the output of elm-tailwind-modules, no matter if it's called with --with-docs or not. Did I overlook something?