NodeJs development offline in docker - node.js

I'm trying to implement a developer workflow with docker, with the ability to develop offline (as in, not having to run npm install when you switch between branches that have differing dependencies)
The most intuitive way to do that is to store dependencies in source control. This has its own issues especially when using modules that compile dependencies. I have tried nearly everything I could think of and find:
npm packing my projects dependencies, storing in source but this doesn't store my dependencies' dependencies
storing node_modules in source, copying this to the container and running npm rebuild but it doesn't actually trigger a rebuild
running npm install --no-registry so t triggers a rebuild but doesn't try to call out, but it actually calls out to the public registry anyway
other solutions I've seen like Node-PAC seem abandoned
npmbox looks the most promising but it requires that it's installed on the target globally, which would work in a container I can build but not production, unless we start deploying containers in production.
Is this a fruitless effort? Lack of network access is rare and would only really be needed when installing a new module or moving between revisions that have differing dependencies

Another option is to setup a private npm repository and to configure it to cache public repository. There are several options to implement this, I would recommend to try Nexus: https://www.sonatype.com/nexus-repository-oss

Related

Best practice for nodejs deployment - Directly moving node_modules to server or run npm install command

What is the best practice for deploying a nodejs application?
1) Directly moving the node_modules folders from the development server to production server, so that our same local environment can be created in the production also. Whatever changes made to any of the node modules remotely will not affect our code.
2) Run npm install command in the production server with the help of package.json. Here the problem is, any changes in the node modules will affect our code. I have faced some issues with the loopback module (issue link).
Can anyone help me?
Running npm install in production server cannot be done in certain scenario (lack of compiling tools, restricted internet access, etc...) and also if you have to deploy the same project on multiple machines, can be a waste of cpu, memory and bandwidth.
You should run npm install --production on a machine with the same libraries and node version of the production server, compress node_modules and deploy on production server. You should also keep the package-lock.json file to pinpoint versions.
This approach allows you also to build/test your code using development packages and then pruning the node_modules before the actual deploy.
Moving node_modules folder is overkilled.
Running npm install might break the version dependencies.
The best approach is npm ci. It uses the package_lock file and installs the required dependencies without modify the versions.
npm ci meant for continuous integration projects. LINK
I am an ASP.NET Core developer but I recently started working with Node.js apps. For me this was one of the challenges you mentioned to move the node_modules folder to production. Instead of moving the whole folder to production or only running the npm install command on production server, I figured out and tried a way of bundling my Node.js app using Webpack into a single/multiple bundles, and I just got rid of the mess of managing node_modules folder. It only picks up the required node_modules packages that are being used/referred in my app and bundles up in a single file along with my app code and I deploy that single file to production without moving the entire node_modules folder.
I found this approach useful in my case but please suggest me if this is not the correct way regarding the performance of the app or if any cons of this approach.
Definitely npm install. But you shouldn't do this by your own hand when it comes to deploying your app.
Use the tool for this like PM2.
As for your concern about changes in packages, the short answer is package-lock.json.
My guess is that by asking this question you don't really understand the point of the package.json file.
The package.json file is explicitly intended for this purpose (that, and uploading to the npm registry), the transfer of a node package without having to transfer the sizeable number of dependencies along with it.
I would go as far as to say that one should never manually move the node_modules directory at all.
Definitely use the npm install command on your production server, this is the proper way of doing it. To avoid any changes to the node_modules directory as compared to your local environment, use the package lock file. That should help with minimising changes to the source code in node_modules.
I mean no bad intent by saying this

Is copying /node_modules inside a Docker image not a good idea?

Most/all examples I see online usually copy package.json into the image and then run npm install within the image. Is there a deal breaker reason for not running npm install from outside on the build server and then just copying everything including the node_modules/ folder?
My main motivation for doing this is that, we are using a private npm registry, with security, and running npm from within an image, we would need to figure out how to securely embed credentials. Also, we are using yarn, and we could just leverage the yarn cache across projects if yarn runs on the build server. I suppose there's workarounds for these, but running yarn/npm from the build server where everything is already set up seems very convenient.
thanks
Public Dockerfiles out there are trying to provide generalized solution.
Having dependencies coded in package.json makes it possible to share only one Dockerfile and not depend on anything not public available.
But at runtime Docker does not care how files got to container. So this is up to you, how you push all needed files to your container.
P.S. Consider layering. If you copy stuff under node_modules/, do it in one step, by that only one layer is used.

Easy Install of Node js package on without publishing

I am looking for a way to deploy a node js app to multiple machines locally.
Is there some way to create a batch file to zip, or installer file, that will put my node js application and all its dependencies, and possibly get node js too easily on multiple machines by sending one or more files to install?
Also, is there some way to provide updates if the code is updated to all these machines?
Basically, I want to be able to install my node js package/application on multiple locations locally without having to publish my work to npm. Any ideas? cant seem to find anything out there except for putting node js on a web server, or publishing to npm?
This is quite vast. Without using advanced tools these two could work :
git pull origin master
npm install
or a solution with rsync
node js application and all its dependencies
Run an npm install where you're developing your application. Then, just tarball the whole thing, including the node_modules directory. When you deploy your tarball to another machine, be sure to run npm rebuild so that any binary dependencies are built for the platform you just deployed to. If you do your initial npm install on the same platform type, you can usually skip the rebuild step.
Also, is there some way to provide updates if the code is updated to all these machines?
There are an infinite number of ways, and what you pick depends on your needs. You could check-in your whole project including node_modules to version control and just have a Bash script regularly pull from a branch and bounce things as necessary for your specific needs. Beware though that node_modules tends to be huge... it's usually left out of version control. Perhaps stick to the tarball on a server and pull that as necessary.
and possibly get node js too
Keep that separate. You don't need to deploy Node.js every time you deploy your application.

How can I switch between a linked npm dependency (in development) and an installed dependency (in staging/prod)?

I have a custom npm module that I am working on, and it has a GitHub repo. I'm also working on a project that uses the custom module. When working on the larger project, it is nice to use npm link so I can make changes to the module and see them right away in the main project.
To deploy to staging or production, I use shrinkwrap and shrinkpack so I can do an npm install after every deploy (some of the dependencies need binaries, and dev systems aren't the same as production systems, so they do need to be installed and not just kept in source control). Edit: I'm crossing this out as the answer below technically solves my issue, even though it doesn't solve for this particular point, but that wasn't as important as the rest of it.
Of course, since the module is linked to my main project and not listed in package.json, a deploy and install misses it entirely. I can go ahead and list it in package.json and have it point to the appropriate GitHub repo, but then every time I need to test a change in the main project I would have to commit and push those changes, then update the main project, kill and restart the app...that would get tiresome pretty quickly.
I guess I need something like the opposite of "devDependencies"; something where I can have it not install the module on dev, but do install it from GitHub when doing npm install on staging or production. Other than remembering to manually change package.json every time I need to go back and forth, is there a better way to do this?
you can specify a github repository as your package to install, in your package.json file:
{
dependencies: {
"my-library": "githubusername/my-library"
}
}
this will work in your production environment.
in your development environment, use "npm link".
from within the "my-library" folder, run npm link directly. that will tell npm on your local box that "my-library" is avaialable as a link.
now, in your project that uses "my-library", run npm link my-library. this will create a symlink to your local development version of "my-library", allowing you to change code in that repository and have it work in your other project that needs it.
once you are ready to push to production, push "my-library" to your github repository, and then you can npm install on your servers, like normal.

Best way to set up a node.js web project in a closed environment

We build a web application and our project uses various npm packages for development, testing and run-time.
The project is built as part of a large project in TFS. TFS runs ant to build the project. Our build.xml first runs npm install, then transpiles and minifies the TypeScript and Sass files (using Grunt tasks) and then builds the final war fie.
This all works OK, but our TFS is not allowed to access the Internet during the build, only our local network. Therefore, we have all the npm libraries we use copied to a file server in our network, and our package.json dependencies point to paths on that file server.
Does this seems like a reasonable solution?
The problem we have is that the npm install takes about 10 minutes to get all the >50 packages we use (which includes karma, grunt, sass, tslint, etc. – total is 170MB).
We are now looking for way to reduce the TFS build time. One option is to but the node_modules in our source control and skip the npm install step, but is seems wrong to put third-party code in our source control.
I’d love to hear other ideas to handle this and have shorter build time.
Note that on developers machine the project builds in no time, as all packages are already installed, but TFS builds start by getting a clean environment from source control, so nothing is installed.
Tough problem. You could have TFS check if your package.json checksum has changed in order to determine if a "clean" is necessary. You'd still have a 10 minute build whenever package.json is updated, but package.json changes are usually infrequent.
The lines become blurred when you host your own npm libraries since this is essentially taking a snapshot of only the dependencies you need. Therefore, if you added a dependency, colors, you'd have to update your npm repo. That could be viewed as updating the node_modules folder on your npm repo. It's a static list of available dependencies which essentially defeats the purpose of a package.json (unless of course other internal apps use the internal npm repo).
BUT, I digress, I'd argue that the best option is to have a package.json checksum for TFS to know if it should bother rebuilding node_modules.

Resources