I'm in the process of developing a Meteor package, that has a dependency on a node module. This module is also, under development, so right now it's just a local folder.
Looking around, it seems that adding
Npm.depends({ "npmmodulename": "x.x.x"});
on the package.js file, it should be enough, but how do I do this, when the npm module is local? I tried adding the path to the module, instead of the version, but I had no luck...
Can this be actually done?
You don't need to specify an Npm.depends clause because your node package is not yet published to npmjs.org so it doesn't matter.
Let's assume your node package is in "my-project/packages/my-package/node-package".
You can reference it from your meteor package like this :
my-project/packages/my-package/server.js :
var nodePackage=Npm.require("../../../../../packages/my-package/node-package");
All the ../.. stuff is needed because the current working directory of a meteor node process is "my-project/.meteor/local/build/programs/server".
Note that using this technique, meteor doesn't take care of building your node package, so you need to manually "npm install" it each time you modify it's inner dependencies.
Related
I've got quite some experience in (web) development (Java, ASP.NET and PHP amongst all), and fairly new to React and Node JS.
Although I did multiple tutorials and read multiple articles, I feel like I'm missing some point here and there. Currently I'm working on a React app which implements a nice HTML template I found.
One React tutorial I did used Webpack for building and deploying the app (local). This works nice, does the job of transpiling ES6 (.jsx) and SASS using babel. So far so good :)
My template has an image slider (Owl Carousel), so I installed the react-owl-carousel module.
This gave me quite some problems with jQuery (also installed as a module).
After several attempts to fix this I decided to move on to another slider module, React Awesome slider.
I used the module as the README.md explained. But upon building it (npm run build), I got an error that the .scss file within react-awesome-slider could not be transpiled. A message like "are you missing a loader".
So I installed sass, node-sass, sass-loader etc etc and configured these in my webpack.config.js.
I also noticed the react-awesome-slider module within node-modules contained a webpack.config.js.
Long story so far, sorry, now to the essence of this question.
In what way can the modules installed (like react-awesome-slider) be considered "black boxes"?
It doesn't feel logical that all the modules get build when building the main app. The "exclude: /node_modules/," config in webpack.config.js prevents this, not?
So why does the react-awesome-slider give an error about .scss transpiling? I had no .scss rule in my webpack config then.
Will all dependend modules automatically get installed when installing a new module? So when I run "npm i react-awesome-slider --save-dev", will its dependencies also be installed? Or is this not necessary? And do I need to update (webpack) configuration after installing a new module? Or is it really black box and "self-containing"?
Any help would greatly be appreciated!!! Maybe there is a good react-webpack sample app on Github or something like that?
That also confusing me for a really long time. Here are some answers to your question.
people publish packages to the NPM, so a module your project depends on
can be pre-builded or source code, it depends. I have checked react-awesome-slider, it's main field in package.json is dist/index.js, directly import it won't cause an issue because there are no SCSS files.If you follow the CSS module usage instruction you have import react-awesome-slider/src/styles and you will find src/styles.js file import ../styled.scss,so webpack will load it with SCSS loader which you have not configured, that's why an error occurred.
while you install modules, npm will go
through its dependency tree, install its dependencies, dependencies'
dependencies, until there's no more dependency module to install. before npm 3.0 the node_module folder is tree structure reflects the dependency tree, but it causes problems that many modules relay on the same dependency, npm will download and save too many same files, after version 3.0 it becomes flat(release note here, search flat keyword).
You don't need to update your webpack config after you install a dependency cause webpack build process will handle it with file dependency tree. You have installed a package and import it in your activation code, file there will be handle( with its package.json main field file as an entry), you have installed a package without using it or import it in a dead file(dead file means you cannot find it from webpack entry file), it will be ignored by webpack as it's dead code.
I have too many confuse until I read npm docs. Good luck to you.
Node modules are build to execute packages.When the are compiled they have proper configuration to handle extensions that are imported in it and when you import something like .scss in your main app then it does not know about that extension then your webpack need rules to include that extensions.
It does exclude node_modules as the are pre-converted pr pre build.
More over webpack is bit tough so developers create CRA Have look at it.
I put some common code in this local module called 'client-common'. In one of the app project using this common module, I add this to package.json dependencies:
"client-common": "../client-common"
After npm install the module gets copied to node_modules. When I run (it's an Ionic project) ionic serve, it builds all fine, but at runtime in the browser I get
Runtime Error
Cannot find module "client-common"
I'm assuming this is a webpack issue? The question is why is the local module treated differently and not bundled at all?
It seems that I was supposed to supply an index.js in the common module. After adding an index.js duplicated from the existing index.d.ts, exporting everything, it just works now.
I have downloaded some nodejs script and there is no package.json inside. It works with a lot of npm_modules but this directory is huge and I'm pretty sure it does not use ALL of them.
Is there a way I can list all dependencies ACTUALLY used by this node script ?
in nodejs itself.
Create a simple package.json for your script (without any dependencies). After that you can npm module dependency-check (https://www.npmjs.com/package/dependency-check) with the --missing option.
Hope this helps.
Is it possible to force an external npm dependency to use a different node.js package that offers the same API but a different implementation?
If you're willing to do that and that module is open source you could fork that on github, change their package.json to include the module you want and use github url for your own package.json like this:
"modulename": "git+https://git#github.com/user/repo.git"
You should be able to download the source of whatever module you would prefer and put that folder within your node_modules folder. From that point you simply require it within your Node.js app like any other NPM module.
I recommend downloading the code for the API you want, creating an src/assets folder, placing it in there, changing the package name in package.json to something not used in npm, then using 'require('newPackageName')' within your code.
If you decide to use some of package.json's capabilities to point towards a specific version (like using "1.4.7" as opposed to "^1.4.7") or if you point to a github address, be careful when you run npm update. It will replace your URL with the latest version in npmjs.org with that specific name. I don't know if it still does this in newer versions of npm, but in the version that works with Node.js 0.12, this is the default behavior.
I can tell you that node shrinkwrap will work, but it will prevent any other packages from being updated as well. No, you cannot just have one shrinkwrapped dependency, it has to be all of them, or npm update won't work.
I know that doing something like this in package.json :
....
...
"dependencies" : {
"some-node-module" : "*"
}
is a bad idea since you're basically telling node to always update this module to its latest version, even though your code might not be able to handle any other version other than the current one for this particular module.
So I should instead do something like this :
....
...
"dependencies" : {
"some-node-module" : "3.4.1"
}
Which basically tells node to always use the version of the module that my code was built around.
Question
I have an app which I've first tested locally. The app has now been built, and using the package.json dependencies, npm has installed all of the appropriate node modules locally under my app's root folder (as opposed to globally, in some obscure folder I don't have immediate access to and which is irrelevant to this app - I simply don't like global installations of node modules - I find them to.. "abstract").
Given that all of the node modules are now installed locally isn't the node modules dependencies part in my package.json now redundant ?
I mean, what if something happens and npm is not available or the specific version of a module can't be found?
Isn't it best to be independent of dynamic node module installations and just have everything installed locally the first time without having to use the package.json dependencies ?
npm install & update
"you're basically telling node to always update this module to its latest version"
Packages won't be automatically updated. The only time the "*" will be an issue is when you are installing the project for the first time via npm install or when you manually run an update via npm update.
I personally prefer to pick a specific version of a module rather than use any wildcards, but even then there are some gotchas...which is why npm shrinkwrap exists.
npm shrinkwrap
Next gotcha:
basically tells node to always use the version of the module that my
code was built around
Sorta true. Let's say you use version 1.2.3 of your favorite module and package.json reflects that, but in the module itself is a package.json dependency on another module and that uses "*"...so when you install, the new internal dependency and the wildcard can wind up breaking the module you thought was 'locked down'.
See the gotcha? Hard coding a version controls for the top level versions but does not enforce anything beneath that...and if a module author you depend upon (or a module they depend upon) uses wildcards, you can't be 100% sure things will be copacetic.
To strictly enforce a version, you'll want to use npm shrinkwrap. (The link there to the docs provides more background, which is good to understand if your project uses more than a few very simple modules.)
And now...your question.
You say:
I mean, what if something happens and npm is not available or the
specific version of a module can't be found?
Based on the first two parts of this answer, it should now be clear that it doesn't hurt to have the dependencies explicitly listed in the package.json because node isn't checking things every time the app runs. npm uses package.json when specific actions (install, update, etc) are called but even then, it is a manual trigger.
While situations vary, there are very few that I can imagine where omitting dependencies in package.json is a good idea. If you ever wind up having to rebuild the project, you'll be in trouble. If the project is so good you want to share it, you'll be in trouble. Heck, if this is something for work and you want to go on vacation and need to install it on another machine...you'll be in trouble.
So given the fact that after the initial install, dependencies have no negative impact...use --save or add the dependencies to your package.json. Your future self will thank you. :)