Update dependency ordered-binary to v1.6.1

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
ordered-binary	1.5.3 → 1.6.1

---

Release Notes

kriszyp/ordered-binary (ordered-binary)

v1.6.1

Compare Source

v1.6.0

Compare Source

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

[socket-security]

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	ordered-binary@​1.5.3 ⏵ 1.6.1	+1		+1	-2

View full report

[kriszyp]

I think it could be dangerous to have the ordered-binary in harper as a different version than the one included from lmdb (and rocksdb-js). I don't think we would ever want that to happen, using two different versions could create risk weird inconsistencies. We should probably be using a (broad) dependency range.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

I see; should we move ordered-binary to peerDependencies with a generous version, and then let it be provided by lmdb or rocksdb-js?

[kriszyp]

should we move ordered-binary to peerDependencies

But ordered-binary isn't a peer to harper, we aren't expecting users of harper to import ordered-binary. We are just using ordered-binary as a dependency like lmdb is using it as a dependency, so based on my understanding of peerDependencies, this is a standard dependency (not a peer). But maybe I am misunderstanding?

[Ethan-Arrowood]

🤔

well my understanding is that generally it is okay to mismatch a direct dependency and a transitive dependency. Like in this case:

|- ordered-binary @ 1.6.1
|- lmdb
    |- ordered-binary @ 1.5.3

Is perfectly okay.

If not, meaning that lmdb requires modules that depend on it to provide the same ordered-binary version, then I think ordered-binary should be a peer-dep of lmdb, no?

This comes from: https://nodejs.org/en/blog/npm/peer-dependencies#using-peer-dependencies