[FEATURE] Install a package as a sole project

[jfoclpf]

What / Why

Imagine you have a big project with a lot of npm dependencies, but which is not supposed to have dependants, that is, a sole single project from which no other packages are supposed to depend on. An exemple is the npm package autocosts, 54 dependencies and 0 dependants.

When I install this package on a new machine or newly created directory, the file/directory structure becomes:

package-lock.json
node_modules/
 autocosts/
   node_modules/

When

When I run npm install <package> on an empty directory or a new machine

How

Current Behavior

It makes this folder/file structure with no package.json for the current package

package-lock.json
node_modules/
 autocosts/
   node_modules/

Then if I want to start the server npm start an error occurs, that is, the command npm i autocosts && npm start does not work

Expected Behavior

The folder structure should just be with an extra option npm i autocosts --sole

(files of package)
package.json
package-lock.json
node_modules/
other_dirs/

Basically I'm requesting an extra option to make it possible to install everything directly in the current directory

[ljharb]

npm start is a development script - you're only supposed to run that when developing a project, which usually means you've git cloned it. npm install is for dependencies - something you run or require, but not something you run scripts in.

[ljharb]

iow, that particular package does not have correct instructions; "apps" (like that one) should not be installed in this way unless they provide a binary; the proper instructions would be to tell people to clone the repo.

[jfoclpf]

If I tell people to clone the repo with git clone, npm dependencies will not be installed. We don't commit by default the content of node_modules/ directory.

[ljharb]

Step 1: clone the repo
Step 2: npm install
Step 3: npm start.

That's the way it's usually done as far as I'm aware.

[jfoclpf]

In that case I'd rather have
Step 1: npm install package
Step 2: cd node_modules/package
Step 3: npm start

Less programs to run. Furthermore in theory it's possible to have npm packages with no github projects attached

[ljharb]

Sure, it's possible, but it's a very unidiomatic way to use npm, and cding into node_modules - what should be a black box - is not a good practice.

[jfoclpf]

Wouldn't be simpler to have an extra option?

Step 1: npm install package --{app|sole}
Step 3: npm start

If the npm repository has already all the files I need, why do I need to fetch them in github?

[ljharb]

Because npm start is for an app - which needs dev deps. If you want a runnable binary, use "bin" and not "start".

[jfoclpf]

If I understand correctly, bin is for a CLI executable in the bin folder, and in my case it is indeed a node app. But it's an app which needs to start a server for it to work (basically it's a http server which serves a website/calculator). And for the server to run in production I don't need dev dependencies. If all the files I need are in the npm repository, I still don't understand why should I fetch them from github.

[jfoclpf]

Step 1: clone the repo
Step 2: npm install
Step 3: npm start.

That's the way it's usually done as far as I'm aware.

Why should I fetch files from two different places?

[ljharb]

"an app which needs to start a server" works just fine as a binary.

[jfoclpf]

But how does it work exactly? Where do I put the binary in my repo? How do I generate the binary if I just have a node script?

[ljharb]

You put it anywhere you want, as long as "bin" in package.json points to it.

By "binary" i don't mean a binary file, i just mean an executable node JS file. So, whatever your node script does, that's what your "binary" would do.

[jfoclpf]

Hi @ljharb
I was checking the bin option in package.json and I still don't get how that can solve my problem. Such bin will be put in the folder node_modules/.bin/ but when the user installs the package from scratch by doing npm i autocosts, he has no access to the bins.

Therefore the question remains: how does a user install a sole npm project (i.e. with dependencies but no dependants) on a new machine or an empty directory, without the need to fetch the files from github since they are already in the npm repository?

[jfoclpf]

@ljharb I updated my request
#1578 (comment)

[jfoclpf]

@ljharb
it's not the option I like the most, thus I requested this feature, but eventually I used your initial suggestion:
https://github.com/jfoclpf/autocosts#try-it-on-your-machine

Thanks anyway

[ljharb]

The user would invoke your package in either npx or an npm run-script.

[jfoclpf]

To run npm run-script you need package.json on the current directory, and when you install a package on a newly created directory, a package.json is not provided in said directory. Do kindly see my OP.

…

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, 17:15 Jordan Harband, ***@***.***> wrote: The user would invoke your package in either npx or an npm run-script. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1578 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA6M4DNKGRVUQIXR4Z22DKDSAAFHNANCNFSM4PLT4BHQ> .

[darcyclarke]

npm v6 is no longer in active development; We will continue to push security releases to v6 at our team's discretion as-per our Support Policy.

If your bug is preproducible on v7, please re-file this issue using our new issue template.

If your issue was a feature request, please consider opening a new RRFC or RFC. If your issue was a question or other idea that was not CLI-specific, consider opening a discussion on our feedback repo

Closing: This is an automated message.