What would be the preferred way to handle internal modules within a node.js application?
I mean, currently we have a fairly big application and there are several dependencies, installed via npm. We have node_modules in .gitignore. Therefore it's not in the repository. We use npm shrinkwrap to freeze the modules versions, so, upon deployment, an npm install puts together eveything we need into node_modules.
The problem is, since out app is getting bigger, we want to split it to smaller modules. Now, if I create a foo module and put it in node_modues, I need to allow it in the repo, which does not seem so neat to have both ignored and checked out modules in node_modules.
We can not publish these on npm registry because they are not really "public".
Is there any obvious solution that I'm not aware of?
I agree with your aesthetic of not mixing 3rd-party non-repo stuff with your in-house revision-controlled contents.
The NODE_PATH search path variable can help you here, you can use a different directory with contents under revision control.
http://nodejs.org/api/modules.html
Depending on your appetite for flexibility vs complexity, you can consider a build step that actually copies your various node modules from wherever you keep them, into an output directory (probably "named node_modules" but not necessarily).
A common solution is to store the modules in a private Git repository somewhere, and then use a git:// URL as a dependency; npm knows how to clone repositories as dependencies.
Related
I'm working on a Javascript project, and as it so happens one of my dependencies pulls in puppeteer, which in turn downloads a whole copy of Chromium into my node_modules. My larger project is split into multiple Javascript packages, so I end up with multiple identical copies of Chromium among other stuff.
Is there a way to deduplicate these packages system wide? Note, npm dedupe seems to do something completely different to what I want.
I imagine there would be a module repository in my home directory which contains every package I need (in every version needed), and then in the local node_modules directories would contain only symlinks to the repository. This seems like an incredibly obvious optimisation, but I can't find any way to do it in npm. If not in npm, is it maybe possible in yarn?
As an added complication, this should also work on Windows (where symbolic link support has historically been not so good).
It seems the following command does what I want:
npm config set link -g
Then delete node_modules, and do npm install again. It should be much smaller now.
The documentation says:
If true, then local installs will link if there is a suitable globally installed package.
Note that this means that local installs can cause things to be installed into the global space at the same time. The link is only done if one of the two conditions are met:
The package is not already installed globally, or
the globally installed version is identical to the version that is being installed locally.
I am not sure if this has any negative side-effects - for example clobbering the global namespace with commands I don't want. For now, it seems to work fine.
This must be a commonly solved problem, but I cannot find a whole lot on Google/SO so far.
When we run npm install and fetch say 50+ packages including devDependencies as well as runtime dependencies, npm creates node_modules (if needed) and adds each of those packages inside that folder. This means we end up with thousands of extraneous files included under node_modules. Each of those packages contains their own package.json, README.md, minified files, source files, etc. Our application really only cares about jquery.js (for DEV) and jquery.min.js (for PROD), so it seems to be a waste to include all of these other files into our build and therefore our web server.
Is there a standard when it comes to handle these npm packages in a way so that we simply expose ONLY the necessary files to the user? I imagine many people have this kind of issue but I don't see any built in npm constructs that allow us to do this easily.
See below.. the yellow highlighted files are the only files we really care about in Production, but we get all these extra files as well including the source code.
The most common solution consist of bundling your application on a different machine and then expose the built artefacts on production server.
There are a lot of great JS bundlers out there. The ones I have personally used are Browserify, Webpack, and Rollup. All amazing tools.
The main idea consists of writing your application in a Node environment and then bundle it to make it readable to the browser.
For simpler projects I find Browserify a very good compromise between power and ease of configuration. But it's a matter of taste, at the end. :)
Base on what I read about npm install documentation I do not think there is a option to manipulate the installation in the way you want. The packages will install the way the package author decides to package it, sometimes minified sometimes not.
Having said that, you should look for third party solutions like modclean which does exactly what you want post package installation. Run this command in the root of your project directory
npm install modclean -g
modclean
As long as your test coverage is good, ModClean would be perfect for your need.
Edit the package.json file and remove all the unnecessary dependencies then do
npm install --save
By doing this, it will create a local node_modules folder and only download the necessary packages into it (not the global node_modules folder)
Keep in mind, by default, node checks for local node_modules folder. If it couldn't find it, it will use the global folder.
Also, you don't expose all the packages in the node_modules folder. In fact, they will not be used unless you require(); them in the node.js file
EDIT:
For jQuery to work in Node, a window with a document is required. Since no such window exists natively in Node, one can be mocked by tools such as jsdom. This can be useful for testing purposes. https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery
require("jsdom").env("", function(err, window) {
if (err) {
console.error(err);
return;
}
var $ = require("jquery")(window);
});
So jquery module do things a bit differently behind the scene for node.js comparing to the regular front-end jquery.
It requires jsdom so you will have to download that as well from here https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom
I'm developing various Angular 2 projects and I want to share node_modules folder between multiple projects. I would like to create a structure like this:
MainFolder
- Project1
- Project2
- package.json
so I would have just 1 package.json for all the projects. My answer: is it possible to do this?
If possible, I have to lunch npm install with -g?
I can't understand how -g works.
Can someone give me instructions how to proceed?
Very thanks
I forgot to say that I build the projects with angular-cli.
The way I go around this for small/learning/test projects is with (I call it) "git projects". Basically I manage the various projects via git, and just "load" the project I want to work on. Of course this doesn't work if you want to have access to multiple projects at the same time.
I like to use a git client for this purpose because it's easier to visualize my existing "projects".
So my workflow is this...
Create my main/base folder. This will contain the git repo, the single node_modules folder, and whatever else that should be common to all projects.
I create the basic package.json file (using npm init). No description, no nothing, just the basic skeleton package.json file. (However, if you know you will use certain packages in ALL of your projects, you can npm install them first, so they will be added to package.json as your "base" modules.)
Now I check the bare package.json into the repo (and anything else that you may want to have in all of your projects, but usually it's just the package.json file). This will be the bare-bones starting branch for all projects.
Once this is checked in, I create a branch off of this in the git repo. This will be "Project 1" - or whatever you want to call it. Then build up your project however you want, installing modules, checking in changes, etc, etc.
When I want to start a new project, I simply check out the first bare-bones project (which is just the empty, or almost empty, package.json file) and do another branch off of it. This will be my 2nd project.
And so forth...
So the main thing is that every new "project" will be a new branch in the git repo, and to create a new project, just switch back to the original bare-bones one and do a new branch off of that.
Of course it is possible to create branches within a project, too. It's all about naming conventions. You could, for example, prefix a new project branch with "P_" or "PROJECT_", etc, so you can quickly tell in your git client which branches are projects. And of course use a different naming scheme if you just need a new branch within an existing project. That's basically how I go about it.
You may not like this workflow, but this way I don't need to install packages globally. When I do a backup, I can simply delete the single (possibly huge) node_modules folder. All project related modules can be reinstalled by simply checking out a branch for a particular project and run "npm install" on its package.json. Hope it makes sense.
Here is documentation on the various npm install arguments
In global mode (ie, with -g or --global appended to the command), it
installs the current package context (ie, the current working
directory) as a global package.
The -g install locations based on environment can be found here
One way you can achieve what you want is to have one solution for both projects and each project route uses it's own lazy loaded module.
Unless you have a specific business need to share resources, it's better to keep each project separate with it own resources and configuration.
-g Stands for global Installation, i.e. the packages you install will be available for all applications.
And why do you want to share node_modules and package.json file?
Keep them seperate for each seperate project. And if you need to share your project, you may share your package.json instead of sharing the node_modules folder.
Also to point out, if you manually install packages by listing their names, then you can use -g (global) flag, but if you do use only npm install then your packages won't be installed as global packages.
If it really is just for testing simple applications, could rename tha app folder in some way provide a solution. It assumes that all the dependencies are the same or at least a subset of the dependencies provided.
Recently started working with Gulp and I can't figure out is it really necessary to have a copy of node_modules directly in folder with current project?
E.g. I have this structure:
mysite
└─builder
└──node_modules
└─work
└─work2
How can I access node_modules in folder 'builder' from folder 'work' or 'work2' without copying it? It is quite large, about 100mb, and seems to me it has no sense to have a copy of it for every new project.
I tried this line export NODE_PATH='D:\OpenServer\domains\mysite\build' in file package.json and then tried command gulp but it replied[10:24:27] Local gulp not found in d:\OpenServer\domains\mysite\work
[10:24:27] Try running: npm install gulp
Short answer
Don't do it. Let NPM work the way it's designed to. However, to save space, you can delete the node_modules folder on projects that are currently dormant, and recreate it with a single shot of npm install when you switch back to them.
Justification
Even if you share your node_modules, you'll probably have redundancies in it anyway. What will you do about them next ?
It is the essence of NPM to replicate modules per project. If you dig into the node_modules folder tree, you may notice that it can even contain several replications of a same library under one given dependencies tree. Say you requested two modules explicitely, and both these modules themselves pulled a dependency that takes care of a lot of things, and is therefore called lib_DADDYMUMMY :
node_modules
+ a_module_you_use v0.5
+ lib_DADDYMUMMY v0.1 (pulled as a dependency of this module)
+ another_module_that_you_requested v0.3
+ lib_DADDYMUMMY v0.1 (again ! pulled as a dependency of this other module)
This comes in handy when your two module start needing different versions of lib_DADDYMUMMY. This comes in handy when you maintain long-lived projects ! And hell knows that in the JavaScript world, with fast changing APIs, you can consider most any decent project as long-lived. :)
One could imagine having all dependencies being shared by everyone, living in a flat structure, with several versions of a library living next to each other and every one finding what he needs there. That repository could be called, say, .m2. But that's just not the way NPM works unfortunately.
NPM considers that storage space is cheap. That's its price for helping you manage versions in dependencies, dependencies of dependencies, and dependencies of dependencies of dependencies. I consider that it's an affordable price for taking care of the dirty jobs the day when work and work2, as their lives go on, take diverging maintenance paths. I wouldn't try getting in its way by forcing a half-Maven-like folder model.
Maybe you should put your package.json into your root directory(mysite/package.json),
then try to install node_modules on the root.
In addition, you write gulpfile on the same dir.
eg.
mysite
|- package.json
|- node_modules
|- gulpfile.js
└─builder
└─work
└─work2
However, I recommend that you write one single gulpfile for each project.
One problem why you shouldn't do this is because of versioning. If your modules require different versions of the same package, you're going to run into problems. One package is going to win, and it might break another package.
Further, you get into the problem of having to merge the dependency lists in some way - meaning, you'll have to get the dependencies from work/package.json, work2/package.json, etc. and then install all of them at once.
Merging node_modules/ won't solve your problem, either - believe me, don't try.
Paste the node_modules folder inside your mySite directory.
All npm packages such as gulp will work in your work or work2 directory.
But, now(your folder structure) work folders can't find node_modules in their parent directory.
npm allows us to specify bundledDependencies, but what are the advantages of doing so? I guess if we want to make absolutely sure we get the right version even if the module we reference gets deleted, or perhaps there is a speed benefit with bundling?
Anyone know the advantages of bundledDependencies over normal dependencies?
For the quick reader : this QA is about the package.json bundledDependencies field, not about the package.
What bundledDependencies do
"bundledDependencies" are exactly what their name implies. Dependencies that should be inside your project. So the functionality is basically the same as normal dependencies. They will also be packed when running npm pack.
When to use them
Normal dependencies are usually installed from the npm registry.
Thus bundled dependencies are useful when:
you want to re-use a third party library that doesn't come from the npm registry or that was modified
you want to re-use your own projects as modules
you want to distribute some files with your module
This way, you don't have to create (and maintain) your own npm repository, but get the same benefits that you get from npm packages.
When not to use bundled dependencies
When developing, I don't think that the main point is to prevent accidental updates though. We have better tools for that, namely code repositories (git, mercurial, svn...) or now lock files.
To pin your package versions, you can use:
Option1: Use the newer NPM version 5 that comes with node 8. It uses a package-lock.json file (see the node blog and the node 8 release)
Option2: use yarn instead of npm.
It is a package manager from facebook, faster than npm and it uses a yarn.lock file. It uses the same package.json otherwise.
This is comparable to lockfiles in other package managers like Bundler
or Cargo. It’s similar to npm’s npm-shrinkwrap.json, however it’s not
lossy and it creates reproducible results.
npm actually copied that feature from yarn, amongst other things.
Option3: this was the previously recommended approach, which I do not recommend anymore. The idea was to use npm shrinkwrap most of the time, and sometimes put the whole thing, including the node_module folder, into your code repository. Or possibly use shrinkpack. The best practices at the time were discussed on the node.js blog and on the joyent developer websites.
See also
This is a bit outside the scope of the question, but I'd like to mention the last kind of dependencies (that I know of): peer dependencies. Also see this related SO question and possibly the docs of yarn on bundledDependencies.
One of the biggest problems right now with Node is how fast it is changing. This means that production systems can be very fragile and an npm update can easily break things.
Using bundledDependencies is a way to get round this issue by ensuring, as you correctly surmise, that you will always deliver the correct dependencies no matter what else may be changing.
You can also use this to bundle up your own, private bundles and deliver them with the install.
Other advantage is that you can put your internal dependencies (application components) there and then just require them in your app as if they were independent modules instead of cluttering your lib/ and publishing them to npm.
If/when they are matured to the point they could live as separate modules, you can put them on npm easily, without modifying your code.
I'm surprised I didn't see this here already, but when carefully selected, bundledDependencies can be used to produce a distributable package from npm pack that will run on a system where npm is not configured. This is helpful if you have e.g. a system that's not networked / not on the internet: bring your package over on a thumb drive (or whatever) and unpack the tarball, then npm run or node index.js and it Just Works.
Maybe there's a better way to bundle up your application to run "offline", but if there is I haven't found it.
Operationally, I look at bundledDependencies as a module's private module store, where dependencies is more public, resolved among your module and its dependencies (and sub-dependencies). Your module may rely on an older version of, say, react, but a dependency requires latest-and-greatest. Your package/install will result in your pinned version in node_modules/$yourmodule/node_modules/react, while your dependency will get their version in node_modules/react (or node_modules/$dependency/node_modules/react if they're so inclined).
A caveat: I recently ran into a dependency that did not properly configure its dependency on react, and having react in bundledDependencies caused that dependent module to fail at runtime.