Skip to content

feat(create-cli): add monorepo setup mode#1265

Open
hanna-skryl wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
monorepo-support-step
Open

feat(create-cli): add monorepo setup mode#1265
hanna-skryl wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
monorepo-support-step

Conversation

@hanna-skryl
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #1245

Support for monorepos has been added to the create-cli setup wizard. Using shared monorepo utilities, the wizard now automatically detects monorepo tools and offers a choice between standalone and monorepo setup modes. In monorepo mode, the wizard creates a shared preset with a createConfig factory function, per-project config files that import this preset, and a code-pushup command (using Nx target or package.json script) for each project it finds. The type system supports a plugin scope field for future use, allowing plugins to target either the shared preset or the root config.

@nx-cloud
Copy link

nx-cloud bot commented Mar 6, 2026

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 08a8e02

Command Status Duration Result
nx run ci:code-pushup -- merge-diffs --files=/h... ✅ Succeeded 5s View ↗
nx run-many --targets=code-pushup --parallel=fa... ✅ Succeeded 1m 32s View ↗
nx run-many --targets=code-pushup --parallel=fa... ✅ Succeeded 13m 34s View ↗
nx run-many -t unit-test,int-test ✅ Succeeded 12s View ↗

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2026-03-06 23:10:57 UTC

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl changed the title Monorepo support step feat(create-cli): add monorepo setup mode Mar 6, 2026
@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl force-pushed the monorepo-support-step branch from a12767d to 48fb8a1 Compare March 6, 2026 22:43
@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Open in StackBlitz

@code-pushup/ci

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/ci@1265

@code-pushup/cli

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/cli@1265

@code-pushup/core

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/core@1265

@code-pushup/create-cli

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/create-cli@1265

@code-pushup/models

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/models@1265

@code-pushup/nx-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/nx-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/axe-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/axe-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/eslint-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/eslint-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/coverage-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/coverage-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/js-packages-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/js-packages-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/lighthouse-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/lighthouse-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/typescript-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/typescript-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/jsdocs-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/jsdocs-plugin@1265

@code-pushup/utils

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/utils@1265

commit: 08a8e02

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl force-pushed the monorepo-support-step branch from 48fb8a1 to 08a8e02 Compare March 6, 2026 22:53
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Code PushUp

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit 61a592b with previous commit bbf49e8.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Categories

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Code coverage 🟢 93 🟢 92 ↓ −0.3
Performance 🔴 36 🔴 36 ↓ −0.3
Documentation 🟡 52 🟡 52 ↑ +0.1
Bug prevention 🟡 75 🟡 75 ↓ −0.1
Axe Accessibility 🟡 88 🟡 88 ↓ −0.1
Code style 🟢 100 🟢 100
Security 🔴 0 🔴 0
Updates 🟡 73 🟡 73
Type Safety 🟡 67 🟡 67
Miscellaneous 🟡 67 🟡 67
Accessibility 🟢 92 🟢 92
Best Practices 🟢 100 🟢 100
SEO 🟢 92 🟢 92
👍 1 group improved, 👎 2 groups regressed, 👍 4 audits improved, 👎 6 audits regressed, 14 audits changed without impacting score

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 93 🟢 92 ↓ −0.3
Lighthouse Performance 🔴 36 🔴 36 ↓ −0.3
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🟡 52 🟡 52 ↑ +0.1

31 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
Lighthouse Speed Index 🟨 5.6 s 🟨 5.5 s ↓ −2.5 %
Lighthouse First Contentful Paint 🟥 3.1 s 🟥 3.2 s ↑ +2.9 %
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟥 277 undocumented types 🟥 277 undocumented types  +0 %
Lighthouse Time to Interactive 🟥 14.2 s 🟥 13.7 s ↓ −3.1 %
Lighthouse Total Blocking Time 🟥 2,470 ms 🟥 2,900 ms ↑ +17.6 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 598 undocumented functions 🟥 616 undocumented functions ↑ +3 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 94.6 % 🟩 94.1 % ↓ −0.5 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟩 92.8 % 🟩 92.6 % ↓ −0.2 %
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 279 undocumented variables 🟥 282 undocumented variables ↑ +1.1 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟨 89.2 % 🟨 89.2 % ↑ +0.1 %
Lighthouse Avoids enormous network payloads 🟩 Total size was 2,386 KiB 🟩 Total size was 2,379 KiB ↓ −0.3 %
Lighthouse Minimizes main-thread work 🟥 10.5 s 🟥 11.2 s ↑ +6.6 %
Lighthouse JavaScript execution time 🟥 3.3 s 🟥 4.0 s ↑ +18.6 %
Lighthouse Metrics 🟩 100% 🟩 100% ↓ −3.1 %
Lighthouse Server Backend Latencies 🟩 1,370 ms 🟩 1,120 ms ↓ −18.8 %
Lighthouse Reduce unused JavaScript 🟥 Potential savings of 343 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 342 KiB ↓ −13.9 %
Lighthouse Largest Contentful Paint 🟥 13.3 s 🟥 13.1 s ↓ −1.8 %
Lighthouse Initial server response time was short 🟩 Root document took 560 ms 🟩 Root document took 340 ms ↓ −39.1 %
Lighthouse Uses efficient cache policy on static assets 🟨 31 resources found 🟨 31 resources found ↓ −0.1 %
Lighthouse Max Potential First Input Delay 🟥 660 ms 🟥 700 ms ↑ +7.2 %
Lighthouse Reduce unused CSS 🟥 Potential savings of 111 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 111 KiB ↑ +3.3 %
Lighthouse Remove duplicate modules in JavaScript bundles 🟥 Potential savings of 86 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 96 KiB ↑ +4.4 %
Lighthouse Network Round Trip Times 🟩 20 ms 🟩 10 ms ↓ −29.5 %
JS packages Vulnerabilities for npm dev dependencies. 🟥 61 vulnerabilities (3 critical, 39 high, 12 moderate, 7 low) 🟥 62 vulnerabilities (3 critical, 40 high, 12 moderate, 7 low) ↑ +1.6 %

653 other audits are unchanged.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Code PushUp

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit 61a592b with previous commit bbf49e8.

💼 Project create-cli

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Code coverage 🟢 98 🟢 91 ↓ −7.6
Documentation 🔴 24 🔴 24 ↑ +0.1

4 other categories are unchanged.

👍 1 group improved, 👎 1 group regressed, 👍 1 audit improved, 👎 4 audits regressed, 1 audit changed without impacting score

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 98 🟢 91 ↓ −7.6
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🔴 24 🔴 24 ↑ +0.1

13 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟥 13 undocumented types 🟥 13 undocumented types  +0 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 20 undocumented functions 🟥 37 undocumented functions ↑ +85 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 100 % 🟨 89.1 % ↓ −10.9 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟩 99.2 % 🟩 93.7 % ↓ −5.6 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟩 94 % 🟩 92.4 % ↓ −1.7 %
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 10 undocumented variables 🟥 13 undocumented variables ↑ +30 %

437 other audits are unchanged.

💼 Project utils

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Documentation 🟡 61 🟡 61 ↓ −0.3
Code coverage 🟢 95 🟢 95 ↓ −0.1

4 other categories are unchanged.

👎 2 groups regressed, 👍 1 audit improved, 👎 5 audits regressed

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🟡 61 🟡 61 ↓ −0.3
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 95 🟢 95 ↓ −0.1

13 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 50 undocumented variables 🟥 52 undocumented variables ↑ +4 %
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟨 56 undocumented types 🟥 58 undocumented types ↑ +3.6 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 242 undocumented functions 🟥 252 undocumented functions ↑ +4.1 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 95.9 % 🟩 95.6 % ↓ −0.3 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟩 91.2 % 🟩 91.4 % ↑ +0.1 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟩 97.8 % 🟩 97.7 % ↓ −0.1 %

437 other audits are unchanged.

💼 Project ci

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Documentation 🟡 68 🟡 68 ↑ +0.3
Code coverage 🟢 92 🟢 93 ↑ +0.1

4 other categories are unchanged.

👍 2 groups improved, 👍 3 audits improved, 👎 2 audits regressed, 1 audit changed without impacting score

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🟡 68 🟡 68 ↑ +0.3
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 92 🟢 93 ↑ +0.1

13 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟥 26 undocumented types 🟥 24 undocumented types ↓ −7.7 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟩 94.8 % 🟩 93.6 % ↓ −1.3 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 91 undocumented functions 🟥 82 undocumented functions ↓ −9.9 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 96.6 % 🟩 97.2 % ↑ +0.7 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟨 83.5 % 🟨 82.9 % ↓ −0.7 %
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 16 undocumented variables 🟥 14 undocumented variables ↓ −12.5 %

439 other audits are unchanged.


11 other projects are unchanged.

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl marked this pull request as ready for review March 6, 2026 23:12
@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl requested a review from matejchalk March 6, 2026 23:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Monorepo support in setup wizard

1 participant