I am now in charge of an app whose dependencies were installed using yarn. I am more familiar with NPM. Is switching over as easy as deleting the yarn.lock file and installing NPM to the project? The app hasn't been updated in a year or two so I'm trying to update everything.
Or maybe a better question is, can I install both NPM and yarn globally but pick and choose which one I use for what app? Will it cause issues if they are both installed globally on machine?
Thanks in advance
You can definitely have Yarn and NPM installed on the same machine without issue. NPM generally comes packaged with Node, so most people using Yarn will also have NPM installed, wether they use it or not.
In terms of switching a project from Yarn to NPM, it's a pretty straightforward process, like you described: remove yarn.lock and remove the existing node_modules directory just to avoid any issues.
The subtle issue here is that the yarn.lock will be the current source of truth for exactly which versions of each dependency (and sub-dependencies) is installed. So by removing the yarn.lock your package.json will now become the (incomplete) source of truth which will likely result in some dependencies being upgraded when you perform your first npm install -- then your package-lock.json will become the new strict source of truth.
Given you're planning on updating everything anyway, then this likely isn't going to be an issue, but it's worth keeping in mind as you're likely to see some minor dependency changes.
I work at a largish project with ~10 devs. We have package.json and the resulting package-lock.json committed, and our ci pipeline does npm ci to restore packages according to package-lock.json.
Currently, the developers are instructed to clone the repo and run npm install. However, I found that npm install will install different versions that match the version spec in package.json - for example, ^5.0.5 might cause npm install to install version 5.1.1, or to keep 5.0.5 if it was already in there.
So, I want to change the instructions for developers to:
(common case) If you don't want to change packages or package versions, only use npm ci
If you do, use npm install and/or npm update (possibly with --save-dev), test locally, and then commit the resulting package.json and pacakge-lock.json.
Are these instructions sound? Am I missing something?
Per documentation "this command is similar to npm install, except it's meant to be used in automated environments such as test platforms, continuous integration, and deployment -- or any situation where you want to make sure you're doing a clean install of your dependencies." (emphasis mine).
I prefer using it instead of "install", because it gives some insurances about state of node_modules folder.
It will remove modules folder, if it is present, which will remove everything that is not in lock file, but may accidentally be present from previous install.
It will throw an error if someone changed dependencies by hand and didn't updated lock file.
It will be faster than install, because it doesn't need to build new dependency tree, and it will preserve versions of dependencies which were installed by tag (like latest or next) or by wild card (*). And sometimes this is a very good thing - recent colors incident is a good illustration.
Basically it means that me and all my colleagues will get identical node_modules folder contents. One of the advantages of Yarn in early days were reproducible installs with lock-file, and it is considered a good practice.
What does npm i --package-lock-only do exactly? The documentation is a tad shy on examples. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v6/configuring-npm/package-locks
I'm curious to know if I have older packages in my local node_modules folder and no package-lock.json file, will npm i --package-lock-only generate a package-lock.json according to the version in my local node_modules folder or will it generate a package-lock.json with newer package versions that is consistent with the semver ranges in the package.json that's published in the npm registry.
It will determine versions of packages to install using package.json, and then create a package-lock.json file with its resolved versions if none exists, or overwrite an existing one.
Significantly, it does not actually install anything, which is what distinguishes it from regular npm install (or the aliased npm i).
Well, #Ben Wheeler is acurate, but there's a place to give a little background on this process. In regular situation the package-lock is meant for set a complete dependency tree of every package and it's dependencies in your application, so every developer on a different machine will have the exact same tree. This is important because the dependencies packages might be updated with time and if every developer will use different versions it could break your application. So every time you do "npm i" if you do have a package.lock.json it actually install the packages from there and not from package.json.
Sometimes when developers have a dependencies errors they tend to delete the lock file and the node_modules. which is not always the best option. Most of the time it's enough to update only the lock file to reflect the package.json with the flag --package-lock-only, and then you can do again "npm i" to install your packages. The lock file should be committed to your project repo so everyone can use it to have the same packages version.
package-lock.json is automatically generated for any operations where npm modifies either the node_modules tree, or package.json. It describes the exact tree that was generated, such that subsequent installs are able to generate identical trees, regardless of intermediate dependency updates.
This file is intended to be committed into source repositories, and serves various purposes:
Describe a single representation of a dependency tree such that
teammates, deployments, and continuous integration are guaranteed to
install exactly the same dependencies.
Provide a facility for users to "time-travel" to previous states of
node_modules without having to commit the directory itself.
Facilitate greater visibility of tree changes through readable source
control diffs.
Optimize the installation process by allowing npm to skip repeated
metadata resolutions for previously-installed packages.
As of npm v7, lockfiles include enough information to gain a complete
picture of the package tree, reducing the need to read package.json
files, and allowing for significant performance improvements.
npm 5 was released today and one of the new features include deterministic installs with the creation of a package-lock.json file.
Is this file supposed to be kept in source control?
I'm assuming it's similar to yarn.lock and composer.lock, both of which are supposed to be kept in source control.
Yes, package-lock.json is intended to be checked into source control. If you're using npm 5+, you may see this notice on the command line: created a lockfile as package-lock.json. You should commit this file. According to npm help package-lock.json:
package-lock.json is automatically generated for any operations where npm
modifies either the node_modules tree, or package.json. It describes the
exact tree that was generated, such that subsequent installs are able to
generate identical trees, regardless of intermediate dependency updates.
This file is intended to be committed into source repositories, and serves
various purposes:
Describe a single representation of a dependency tree such that teammates, deployments, and continuous integration are guaranteed to install exactly the same dependencies.
Provide a facility for users to "time-travel" to previous states of node_modules without having to commit the directory itself.
To facilitate greater visibility of tree changes through readable source control diffs.
And optimize the installation process by allowing npm to skip repeated metadata resolutions for previously-installed packages.
One key detail about package-lock.json is that it cannot be published, and it
will be ignored if found in any place other than the toplevel package. It shares
a format with npm-shrinkwrap.json, which is essentially the same file, but
allows publication. This is not recommended unless deploying a CLI tool or
otherwise using the publication process for producing production packages.
If both package-lock.json and npm-shrinkwrap.json are present in the root of
a package, package-lock.json will be completely ignored.
Yes, you SHOULD:
commit the package-lock.json.
use npm ci instead of npm install when building your applications both on your CI and your local development machine
The npm ci workflow requires the existence of a package-lock.json.
A big downside of npm install command is its unexpected behavior that it may mutate the package-lock.json, whereas npm ci only uses the versions specified in the lockfile and produces an error
if the package-lock.json and package.json are out of sync
if a package-lock.json is missing.
Hence, running npm install locally, esp. in larger teams with multiple developers, may lead to lots of conflicts within the package-lock.json and developers to decide to completely delete the package-lock.json instead.
Yet there is a strong use-case for being able to trust that the project's dependencies resolve repeatably in a reliable way across different machines.
From a package-lock.json you get exactly that: a known-to-work state.
In the past, I had projects without package-lock.json / npm-shrinkwrap.json / yarn.lock files whose build would fail one day because a random dependency got a breaking update.
Those issue are hard to resolve as you sometimes have to guess what the last working version was.
If you want to add a new dependency, you still run npm install {dependency}. If you want to upgrade, use either npm update {dependency} or npm install ${dependendency}#{version} and commit the changed package-lock.json.
If an upgrade fails, you can revert to the last known working package-lock.json.
To quote npm doc:
It is highly recommended you commit the generated package lock to
source control: this will allow anyone else on your team, your
deployments, your CI/continuous integration, and anyone else who runs
npm install in your package source to get the exact same dependency
tree that you were developing on. Additionally, the diffs from these
changes are human-readable and will inform you of any changes npm has
made to your node_modules, so you can notice if any transitive
dependencies were updated, hoisted, etc.
And in regards to the difference between npm ci vs npm install:
The project must have an existing package-lock.json or npm-shrinkwrap.json.
If dependencies in the package lock do not match those in package.json, npm ci will exit with an error, instead of updating
the package lock.
npm ci can only install entire projects at a time: individual dependencies cannot be added with this command.
If a node_modules is already present, it will be automatically removed before npm ci begins its install.
It will never write to package.json or any of the package-locks: installs are essentially frozen.
Note: I posted a similar answer here
Yes, it's intended to be checked in. I want to suggest that it gets its own unique commit. We find that it adds a lot of noise to our diffs.
Yes, the best practice is to check-in (YES, CHECK-IN)
I agree that it will cause a lot of noise or conflict when seeing the diff. But the benefits are:
guarantee exact same version of every package between your dev and prod environments. This part is the most important when building in different environments at different times. You may use ^1.2.3 in your package.json, but how can you ensure each time npm install will pick up the same version in your dev machine and in the build server, especially those indirect dependency packages? Well, package-lock.json will ensure that. (With the help of npm ci which installs packages based on lock file)
it improves the installation process.
it helps with new audit feature npm audit fix.
I don't commit this file in my projects. What's the point ?
It's generated
It's the cause of a SHA1 code integrity err in gitlab with gitlab-ci.yml builds
Though it's true that I never use ^ in my package.json for libs because I had bad experiences with it.
To the people complaining about the noise when doing git diff:
git diff -- . ':(exclude)*package-lock.json' -- . ':(exclude)*yarn.lock'
What I did was use an alias:
alias gd="git diff --ignore-all-space --ignore-space-at-eol --ignore-space-change --ignore-blank-lines -- . ':(exclude)*package-lock.json' -- . ':(exclude)*yarn.lock'"
To ignore package-lock.json in diffs for the entire repository (everyone using it), you can add this to .gitattributes:
package-lock.json binary
yarn.lock binary
This will result in diffs that show "Binary files a/package-lock.json and b/package-lock.json differ whenever the package lock file was changed. Additionally, some Git services (notably GitLab, but not GitHub) will also exclude these files (no more 10k lines changed!) from the diffs when viewing online when doing this.
Yes, you can commit this file. From the npm's official docs:
package-lock.json is automatically generated for any operations where npm modifies either the node_modules tree, or package.json. It describes the exact tree that was generated, such that subsequent installs are able to generate identical trees, regardless of intermediate dependency updates.
This file is intended to be committed into source repositories[.]
Yes, it's a standard practice to commit package-lock.json.
The main reason for committing package-lock.json is that everyone in the project is on the same package version.
Pros:
If you follow strict versioning and don't allow updating to major versions automatically to save yourself from backward-incompatible changes in third-party packages committing package-lock helps a lot.
If you update a particular package, it gets updated in package-lock.json and everyone using the repository gets updated to that particular version when they take the pull of your changes.
Cons:
It can make your pull requests look ugly :)
npm install won't make sure that everyone in the project is on the same package version. npm ci will help with this.
Disable package-lock.json globally
type the following in your terminal:
npm config set package-lock false
this really work for me like magic
All answers say "YES" but that also depend of the project, the doc says:
One key detail about package-lock.json is that it cannot be published, and it will be ignored if found in any place other than the toplevel package.
This mean that you don't need to publish on npm your package-lock.json for dependency but you need to use package-lock.json in your repo to lock the version of your test dependency, build dependencies…
However, If your are using lerna for managing projects with multiple packages, you should put the package.json only on the root of your repo, not in each subpackage are created with npm init. You will get something like that :
.git
lerna.json
package.json
package-lock.json <--- here
packages/a/package.json
packages/a/lib/index.js
packages/b/package.json
packages/b/lib/index.js
My use of npm is to generate minified/uglified css/js and to generate the javascript needed in pages served by a django application. In my applications, Javascript runs on the page to create animations, some times perform ajax calls, work within a VUE framework and/or work with the css. If package-lock.json has some overriding control over what is in package.json, then it may be necessary that there is one version of this file. In my experience it either does not effect what is installed by npm install, or if it does, It has not to date adversely affected the applications I deploy to my knowledge. I don't use mongodb or other such applications that are traditionally thin client.
I remove package-lock.json from repo
because npm install generates this file, and npm install is part of the deploy process on each server that runs the app. Version control of node and npm are done manually on each server, but I am careful that they are the same.
When npm install is run on the server, it changes package-lock.json,
and if there are changes to a file that is recorded by the repo on the server, the next deploy WONT allow you to pull new changes from origin. That is
you can't deploy because the pull will overwrite the changes that have been made to package-lock.json.
You can't even overwrite a locally generated package-lock.json with what is on the repo (reset hard origin master), as npm will complain when ever you issue a command if the package-lock.json does not reflect what is in node_modules due to npm install, thus breaking the deploy. Now if this indicates that slightly different versions have been installed in node_modules, once again that has never caused me problems.
If node_modules is not on your repo (and it should not be), then package-lock.json should be ignored.
If I am missing something, please correct me in the comments, but the point that versioning is taken from this file makes no sense. The file package.json has version numbers in it, and I assume this file is the one used to build packages when npm install occurs, as when I remove it, npm install complains as follows:
jason#localhost:introcart_wagtail$ rm package.json
jason#localhost:introcart_wagtail$ npm install
npm WARN saveError ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/home/jason/webapps/introcart_devtools/introcart_wagtail/package.json'
and the build fails, however when installing node_modules or applying npm to build js/css, no complaint is made if I remove package-lock.json
jason#localhost:introcart_wagtail$ rm package-lock.json
jason#localhost:introcart_wagtail$ npm run dev
> introcart#1.0.0 dev /home/jason/webapps/introcart_devtools/introcart_wagtail
> NODE_ENV=development webpack --progress --colors --watch --mode=development
10% building 0/1 modules 1 active ...
Committing package-lock.json to the source code version control means that the project will use a specific version of dependencies that may or may not match those defined in package.json. while the dependency has a specific version without any Caret (^) and Tilde (~) as you can see, that's mean the dependency will not be updated to the most recent version. and npm install will pick up the same version as well as we need it for our current version of Angular.
Note : package-lock.json highly recommended to commit it IF I added any Caret (^) and Tilde (~) to the dependency to be updated during the CI.
I'm working in a web application (JavaScript/C#, version controlled by TFS) and our team wants to start using Visual Studio 2015. Microsoft is moving developers to use existing popular tools like Gulp for automated tasks, so I've written a few Gulp tasks that will run on the server.
My problem is that our automated builds generate new project folders on the build server, so I can't run gulp myBuildTask without first running npm install. The npm install adds over 2 minutes to the build process, and it seems very inefficient to download the same dependencies for every build (since they will change rarely).
Is there anyway I can run a Gulp task on a new project folder without first running npm install?
Options I've considered:
Include node_modules in TFS. I couldn't add the node_modules folder to TFS (which would cause it to exist in each new build folder) because bower's nested dependencies have file paths that are too long for Windows. I could go this route without bower, but I'm not certain I want all those files in my solution (much of which is not needed, like readme's and test files).
Run npm install after each automated build.
As already mentioned, I don't want to do this because it adds several minutes to the build process.
Install NPM modules globally.
I'm not sure if this is even possible, but I'm wondering if I can install all project dependencies globally on the build server (avoiding having to install at the project level). My concern with an approach like this is that I don't want to have to manually update the build server's globally installed NPM modules every time we add a gulp plugin.
Ideally, the solution would be something like #3. The modules would install globally, but every build could run an npm install which would verify every module is installed. If a new npm module was added to the package.json, it would be downloaded. This npm install would be pretty fast since in most cases, all modules would already exist (globally installed on the build server).
There are a few things you might do:
Make npm install run faster. For this purpose, use newest npm (if possible) or use npm dedupe. Running dedupe may result in having less dependencies than with plain npm install. Then run npm shrinkwrap which creates npm-shrinkwrap.json file which contain 'freezed' info about what exactly gets installed (and in which version) during npm install.
Remember, node_modules is just a directory, if you can copy / rsync it to your installation, you can skip the npm install phase altogether
Node package resolution approach is to first try local node_modules directory and if not successful, (node_modules not there or dependency missing in node_modules) check out node_modules of the parent directory, then grandparent directory and so on. This means, you don't have to install packages globally, semi-global installation is quite sufficient
:
my_project
node_modules/
dependency1
dependency2
build_001/
build_002/
build_00x/
no node_modules here,
no deps here
Note however, that this, naturally, works only if your dependencies are really not changing. Since in real life you install something new from time to time, slightly enhanced approach might be helpful: organize your directories as follows:
my_project
ver_af729b
node_modules
build_001
build_002
ver_82b5f3
node_modules
build_003
build_004
af729b and 82b5f3 being (prefixes of) sha hashes of your npm-shrinkwrap.json file. If you then add new dependency, shrinkwrap file gets updated, build script creates new ver_something directory and executes npm install in it. Doing all this would naturally require extra work, but it should work great.
------------------ EDIT -------------------
If you are not trying to avoid npm install completely (you just want it to be quick) you can stick to the typical scenario: you checkout the sources always to the same directory, and let npm install re-use the old node_modules as much as possible.
If you want always to create a new directory for your build, you may still create a node_modules symlink to the older version of node_modules - also in this scenario, npm will reuse as much as possible from symlinked folder.