Add uphold-scripts to allow removal of critical vulnerabilities

[cristianooliveira]

Description

Add uphold-scripts which will allow to remove critical vulnerabilities and makes the code easier to maintain.

[rplopes]

Suggested change

	❯ yarn version
	❯ yarn version [<new version> | major | minor | patch]

[rplopes]

Travis build failing because the latest eslint requires node version >= 8. We need to change the versions under test in CI to match this. Maybe the LTS ones (8, 10, 12)?

[waldyrious]

Shouldn't this be yarn release instead of yarn version?

Also, I think this would be clearer / more explicit:

❯ yarn release ["major" | "minor" | "patch" | <custom version number>] # default: patch

[rplopes]

You're right, it's release, not version, didn't even notice that.

About the rest of the text, I don't have a strong opinion, I was just recommending the generic text we're using on other projects.

[waldyrious]

I know. 🙂 I just wanted to take the opportunity to start migrating towards a clearer phrasing (the usual one was confusing to me the first time I saw it).

[cristianooliveira]

So, are we aiming for this one as standard?

❯ yarn release ["major" | "minor" | "patch" | <custom version number>] # default: patch

[rplopes]

I'd at least remove the quotes there, since they might suggest the command is to be run with them.

[waldyrious]

Using quotes has no disadvantage IIUC (the command works as expected), and explicitly indicates that these are specific values to be inputted as-is. So I see no downsides and a slight upside to keeping the quotes.

That said, it's not a strong preference, so if it bothers you a lot, we can remove them.

[cristianooliveira]

Travis build failing because the latest eslint requires node version >= 8. We need to change the versions under test in CI to match this. Maybe the LTS ones (8, 10, 12)?

Makes sense, will update to those ones @rplopes.

[rplopes]

LGTM