Nathan Whitaker a4c76add56 fix(cli): Respect implied BYONM from DENO_FUTURE in deno task (#24652) ... Regression from 04f9db5b22 Originally I thought to fix the issue in the PR we needed to explicitly pass through the `node-modules-dir` flag, but after applying the correct fix that david pointed out (setting `NPM_PROCESS_STATE`) that wasn't necessary (or correct). We had a test for deno task with BYONM, but it only tested with `"unstable": ["byonm"]` in deno.json, so it didn't catch this.		2024-07-19 18:59:04 +00:00
..
__test__.jsonc	fix(cli): Respect implied BYONM from DENO_FUTURE in deno task (#24652)	2024-07-19 18:59:04 +00:00
deno.json	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00
deno_json_say.out	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00
deno_json_think.out	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00
package.json	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00
package_json_say.out	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00
package_json_think.out	feat(task): support running npm binary commands in deno.json (#23478)	2024-04-20 20:13:46 -04:00