CatubbaandGitHub 7aefc66324 fix(docker): build the SPA on node 24 to match CI (#11) ...

* fix(docker): build the SPA on node 24 to match CI

The frontend CI job runs on node 24 (npm 11) while the image built the SPA
on node:22-slim (npm 10). The two npm majors disagree on whether a violated
*optional* peer dependency is fatal: npm 11 warns, npm 10 fails with ERESOLVE.

So `npm ci` could pass every CI job and still fail `docker build` on the very
same lockfile — which is exactly what happened on the typescript 7 PR, where
i18next declares `peerOptional typescript@"^5 || ^6"`. CI was green; the image
build was not.

Align the build stage to node:24-slim so CI validates the same toolchain the
shipped image uses. Vite 8 requires node >=22.12, so 24 is in range.

Note this makes the image build as lenient as CI: a violated optional peer no
longer stops the build. That is the correct trade — the two environments agreeing
matters more than one of them tripping on type-only metadata — but it does remove
the tripwire that surfaced the typescript 7 conflict.

* ci: fail on node major drift between Dockerfile and ci.yml

The Dockerfile now carries a "keep this in sync with ci.yml" comment, and
comments drift. Assert it instead: parse the node major from the SPA build
stage and from node-version, and fail the build when they disagree.

Verified the guard actually fails, not just passes: drift (22 vs 24) errors,
a ci.yml declaring two different majors errors, and an unparseable Dockerfile
errors with an explanation rather than dying silently under `set -e`.

2026-07-09 11:07:26 +02:00

..

ci.yml

fix(docker): build the SPA on node 24 to match CI (#11)

2026-07-09 11:07:26 +02:00