<!--
👋 Hey, thanks for your interest in contributing to Tailwind!
**Please ask first before starting work on any significant new
features.**
It's never a fun experience to have your pull request declined after
investing a lot of time and effort into a new feature. To avoid this
from happening, we request that contributors create an issue to first
discuss any significant new features. This includes things like adding
new utilities, creating new at-rules, or adding new component examples
to the documentation.
https://github.com/tailwindcss/tailwindcss/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <[email protected]>
This PR fixes an issue where installing a specific version of
`@tailwindcss/postcss` and `tailwindcss` could still result in a version
mismatch. This is because we were relying on `^4.0.6` for example
instead of `4.0.6`.
This PR now pins all these versions to prevent this:
```
❯ pnpm why tailwindcss
devDependencies:
@tailwindcss/postcss 4.0.5
├─┬ @tailwindcss/node 4.0.6
│ └── tailwindcss 4.0.6
└── tailwindcss 4.0.5
```
Closes#16171
This PR handles `darkMode` variant configs containing braces (so
creating sub-rules) the same way we handle it in the interop layer.
Since the interop layer runs inside the `addVariant` API that we do not
run here, I instead oped to copy the one liner.
## Test plan
Updated one of the migration tests to include a rule that wasn't working
before. Ensured the new output works via
https://play.tailwindcss.com/nR99uhKtv3
Closes#16391
Like the title suggest this PR adds error reporting when the `npm
install` or `npm remove` commands fail.
## Test plan
Tested by swapping out the command for `echo "bla"; exit 1` and
capturing the output from the integration tests:
<img width="792" alt="Screenshot 2025-02-13 at 14 33 02"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d1288114-106a-4ac6-a54b-d02b74c98f35"
/>
<img width="761" alt="Screenshot 2025-02-13 at 14 31 05"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6d5b9427-457f-4e67-9723-4e340da61749"
/>
Decided not to add a new test for this since it's unlikely we'll do big
changes here and the upgrade integration tests are already quite slow.
This PR bumps the Prettier dependencies, and also pins the version.
Noticed that a PR with a single empty commit started failing at the time
of writing this
(https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/pull/16306). This is
because prettier released a new minor version which results in slightly
different output.
Let's bump prettier and handle the differences, but also pin the version
to avoid this in the future.
<!--
👋 Hey, thanks for your interest in contributing to Tailwind!
**Please ask first before starting work on any significant new
features.**
It's never a fun experience to have your pull request declined after
investing a lot of time and effort into a new feature. To avoid this
from happening, we request that contributors create an issue to first
discuss any significant new features. This includes things like adding
new utilities, creating new at-rules, or adding new component examples
to the documentation.
https://github.com/tailwindcss/tailwindcss/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <[email protected]>
Resolves#16170
This PR fixes an issue where the previously opted-out escaping of the
first argument for the `var(…)` function was not unescaped at all. This
was introduced in https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/pull/14776
where the intention was to not require escaping of underscores in the
var function (e.g. `ml-[var(--spacing-1_5)]`). However, I do think it
still makes sense to unescape an eventually escaped underline for
consistency.
## Test plan
The example from #1670 now parses as expected:
<img width="904" alt="Screenshot 2025-02-03 at 13 51 35"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cac0f06e-37da-4dcb-a554-9606d144a8d5"
/>
---------
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <[email protected]>
This PR fixes the upgrade tool by properly migrating the
`leading-[<number>]` classes.
The issue is that `leading-[<number>]` maps to the number directly, but
if you use a bare value, then it's a multiplier for based on the
`--spacing` value.
E.g.:
*leading-[2]*:
```css
.leading-\[2\] {
--tw-leading: 2;
line-height: 2;
}
@property --tw-leading {
syntax: "*";
inherits: false;
}
```
*leading-2*:
```css
.leading-2 {
--tw-leading: calc(var(--spacing) * 2);
line-height: calc(var(--spacing) * 2);
}
@property --tw-leading {
syntax: "*";
inherits: false;
}
```
This PR will now prevent migrating arbitrary values to bare values for
`leading-*` utilities.
That said, this does introduce a small improvement where `leading-[1]`
is migrated to `leading-none`.
Fixes: https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/issues/15924
Closes#15220
This PR fixes an issue where the upgrade tool would not be able to load
some JavaScript config files across different drive letters on Windows.
The issue in detail is that `path.relative(…)` tries to build a relative
path but if the file is inside the same folder, it won't start the
relative path with a `./` so we manually appended it in case that it
isn't there. The issue on Windows specifically is that
`file.relative(…)` can also return a legit absolute path, e.g. when the
file is on a different drive. In this case we obviously don't want to
prefix a path with `./`.
## Test plan
To reproduce this issue, I checked out a Tailwind v3 project _on a
different drive letter than my Windows installation_. In that case, I
was adding a repo inside `D:` while `npm` was installed in `C:`. I then
run `npx @tailwindcss/upgrade` to reproduce the issue.
The fix was validated with a local `bun` run of the upgrade tool:
This PR replaces `@variant` with `@custom-variant` for registering
custom variants via your CSS.
In addition, this PR introduces `@variant` that can be used in your CSS
to use a variant while writing custom CSS.
E.g.:
```css
.btn {
background: white;
@variant dark {
background: black;
}
}
```
Compiles to:
```css
.btn {
background: white;
}
@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
.btn {
background: black;
}
}
```
For backwards compatibility, the `@variant` rules that don't have a body
and are
defined inline:
```css
@variant hocus (&:hover, &:focus);
```
And `@variant` rules that are defined with a body and a `@slot`:
```css
@variant hocus {
&:hover, &:focus {
@slot;
}
}
```
Will automatically be upgraded to `@custom-variant` internally, so no
breaking changes are introduced with this PR.
---
TODO:
- [x] ~~Decide whether we want to allow multiple variants and if so,
what syntax should be used. If not, nesting `@variant <variant> {}` will
be the way to go.~~ Only a single `@variant <variant>` can be used, if
you want to use multiple, nesting should be used:
```css
.foo {
@variant hover {
@variant focus {
color: red;
}
}
}
```
This PR improves the upgrade tool to make sure that newly upgraded
`--spacing(2)` CSS functions is pretty printed to prevent unambiguous
looking classes (even though it compiles correctly).
If you have a class such as `m-[calc(100dvh-theme(spacing.2))]`, then we
used to convert it to `m-[calc(100dvh-calc(var(--spacing)*2))]`. But
recently we introduced the `--spacing(2)` CSS function which means that
the output now looks like this instead: `m-[calc(100dvh---spacing(2))]`.
The triple `-` is valid because the first `-` is the minus sign, the
next two `-` characters are from the function.
One solution is to introduce spaces via underscores:
```
m-[calc(100dvh_-_--spacing(2))]
```
But a simpler solution, is to wrap the `--spacing(2)` in parens to
remove the underscores and improve the readability of the `---`
characters.
```
m-[calc(100dvh-(--spacing(2)))]
```
Here is everything you need to know about this update. Please take a
good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull
request.
### What changed?
#### ✳️ prettier (3.3.3 → 3.4.2) ·
[Repo](https://github.com/prettier/prettier) ·
[Changelog](https://github.com/prettier/prettier/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md)
<details>
<summary>Release Notes</summary>
<h4><a
href="https://github.com/prettier/prettier/releases/tag/3.4.2">3.4.2</a></h4>
<blockquote><p dir="auto">🔗 <a
href="https://bounce.depfu.com/github.com/prettier/prettier/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#342">Changelog</a></p></blockquote>
<h4><a
href="https://github.com/prettier/prettier/releases/tag/3.4.1">3.4.1</a></h4>
<blockquote><p dir="auto">🔗 <a
href="https://bounce.depfu.com/github.com/prettier/prettier/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#341">Changelog</a></p></blockquote>
<p><em>Does any of this look wrong? <a
href="https://depfu.com/packages/npm/prettier/feedback">Please let us
know.</a></em></p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<p><a
href="https://github.com/prettier/prettier/compare/52829385bcc4d785e58ae2602c0b098a643523c9...cca946176c3ec04ae46bf7bcb08c5bba8c041682">See
the full diff on Github</a>. The new version differs by more commits
than we can show here.</p>
</details>
---
[Depfu](https://depfu.com) will automatically keep this PR
conflict-free, as long as you don't add any commits to this branch
yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting with
`@depfu rebase`.
<details><summary>All Depfu comment commands</summary>
<blockquote><dl>
<dt>@depfu rebase</dt><dd>Rebases against your default branch and
redoes this update</dd>
<dt>@depfu recreate</dt><dd>Recreates this PR, overwriting any edits
that you've made to it</dd>
<dt>@depfu merge</dt><dd>Merges this PR once your tests are passing and
conflicts are resolved</dd>
<dt>@depfu cancel merge</dt><dd>Cancels automatic merging of this
PR</dd>
<dt>@depfu close</dt><dd>Closes this PR and deletes the branch</dd>
<dt>@depfu reopen</dt><dd>Restores the branch and reopens this PR (if
it's closed)</dd>
<dt>@depfu pause</dt><dd>Ignores all future updates for this dependency
and closes this PR</dd>
<dt>@depfu pause [minor|major]</dt><dd>Ignores all future minor/major
updates for this dependency and closes this PR</dd>
<dt>@depfu resume</dt><dd>Future versions of this dependency will
create PRs again (leaves this PR as is)</dd>
</dl></blockquote>
</details>
Co-authored-by: depfu[bot] <23717796+depfu[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR improves the codemod tool to simplify 2 things:
1. Whenever you have a `theme(…)` call, we try to change it to a
`var(…)`, but if that doesn't work for some reason, we will make sure to
at least convert it to the more modern `--theme(…)`.
2. When converting `theme(spacing.2)`, we used to convert it to
`calc(var(--spacing)*2)`, but now we will convert it to `--spacing(2)`
instead.
This PR prevents the migration of utilities detected in function names,
e.g.: the use of `shadow` inside `filter: 'drop-shadow(…)'`.
## Test plan
Have content like this in a project you're migrating using the upgrade
tool:
```js
{
filter: 'drop-shadow(0 0 0.5rem #000)'
}
```
This was verified by adding unit tests to the specific codemods and
adding an integration test.
`overflow-clip` was the name for `text-clip` in v4. However, that was
changed in v3 already so in v3 `overflow-clip` is already doing the same
as in v4. Hence a codemod is not necessary.
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <[email protected]>
This PR improves the performance of the `@tailwindcss/postcss` and
`@tailwindcss/vite` implementations.
The issue is that in some scenarios, if you have multiple `.css` files,
then all of the CSS files are ran through the Tailwind CSS compiler. The
issue with this is that in a lot of cases, the CSS files aren't even
related to Tailwind CSS at all.
E.g.: in a Next.js project, if you use the `next/font/local` tool, then
every font you used will be in a separate CSS file. This means that we
run Tailwind CSS in all these files as well.
That said, running Tailwind CSS on these files isn't the end of the
world because we still need to handle `@import` in case `@tailwind
utilities` is being used. However, we also run the auto source detection
logic for every CSS file in the system. This part is bad.
To solve this, this PR introduces an internal `features` to collect what
CSS features are used throughout the system (`@import`, `@plugin`,
`@apply`, `@tailwind utilities`, etc…)
The `@tailwindcss/postcss` and `@tailwindcss/vite` plugin can use that
information to decide if they can take some shortcuts or not.
---
Overall, this means that we don't run the slow parts of Tailwind CSS if
we don't need to.
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <[email protected]>
Resolves#15193
This PR fixes an issue where `group` and `peer` would not have their
prefixes migrated as part of the upgrade script. We do this by
registering `group` and `peer` as utilities during the codemods. This
way, `parseCandidate` will find these classes to be valid Tailwind
candidates and the prefix can be migrated just like any other utility.
## Test Plan
Tried it with the v3 upgrade playground in the repo and it worked fine:
<img width="1257" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-27 at 12 17 25"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1ee101e1-1d6a-4ce0-b0d4-8d51e5f6b0d2">
I've also added tests to our prefix upgrade integration test and the
prefix migration unit tests.
This PR ensures that when we inject `layer(…)` into an `@import` that it
always gets inserted as the first param. The `layer(…)` has to come
first by spec.
Input:
```css
@import "./foo" supports(--foo);
```
Before:
```css
@import "./foo" supports(--foo) layer(utilities);
```
After:
```css
@import "./foo" layer(utilities) supports(--foo);
```
