docs(recipes): Add Prisma V7 Warning And Route And Revert Guide To V6 #3352
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: #3350
NestJS's guide on Prisma was recently updated for Prisma v7 in #3349. However, since Prisma v7 ships as an ES module, it conflicts with NodeJS's CommonJS system. Following the updated v7 guide produces errors. More details about this and the errors encountered following the guide are present on the issue (#3350).
What is the new behavior?
This PR reverts the Prisma guide at https://docs.nestjs.com/recipes/prisma back to Prisma v6.
It creates a new dedicated page for the Prisma v7 at https://docs.nestjs.com/recipes/prisma-v7.
On both pages, an info/warning notice is given at the top encouraging users to use Prisma v6 until a proper solution for this ESM+CJS mismatch is implemented in the v7 guide for NestJS users.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
I opted for not including a direct link to the v7 guide in the sidebar since the v7 page is meant to be temporary and as sort of a resource for those willing to mess around with it.
Thanks to @micalevisk for the discussion on #3350.