chore(templates): remove description, license & name keys from package.json

[MichaelDeBoey]

As mentioned by @pcattori in #3221 (comment), these fields aren't necessary for apps.

[pcattori]

sideEffects is actually required for bundling to work as expected. Setting sideEffects: false in an app's package.json marks all imports from that app (e.g. relative imports) as side-effect free.

[MichaelDeBoey]

@pcattori I've added sideEffects back to package.json 👍

[pcattori]

@MichaelDeBoey name should also be removed.

[MichaelDeBoey]

@pcattori Since each app has a certain name, I think we should keep name for convenience.

[pcattori]

@pcattori Since each app has a certain name, I think we should keep name for convenience.

I'm not sure I follow. What convenience does the name field provide?

[MichaelDeBoey]

If I'm not mistaken (@mcansh can probably provide more info about this), integration(?) tests will also fail if examples/templates have the same/no name 🤔
Hence the patchup-example-names script.

[pcattori]

If I'm not mistaken (@mcansh can probably provide more info about this), integration(?) tests will also fail if examples/templates have the same/no name 🤔 Hence the patchup-example-names script.

If we already have a script for handling name collisions, that's a smell that name isn't the right thing for the job in the first place. We should instead just use the filename or filepath in the patchup-example-names script to populate the name field dynamically for the examples/tests. That would guarantee uniqueness (due to filesystem), whereas the name field does not prevent duplicate names.

[MichaelDeBoey]

Thinking about this a bit more and maybe we should just keep these fields, as npm will warn the following otherwise 🤔

npm WARN example-app No description
npm WARN example-app No repository field.
npm WARN example-app No license field.

[pcattori]

Thinking about this a bit more and maybe we should just keep these fields, as npm will warn the following otherwise 🤔

npm WARN example-app No description
npm WARN example-app No repository field.
npm WARN example-app No license field.

Does that app have private: true?

[MichaelDeBoey]

Does that app have private: true?

@pcattori It was indeed missing that one, my bad 😅🙈

[MichaelDeBoey]

I'm not sure I follow. What convenience does the name field provide?

@pcattori People are used to have a name in all their package.jsons, so I think we'll get PRs to add it (again) if we decide to remove it.

create-react-app & create-next-app also add name to package.json btw.
https://github.com/facebook/create-react-app/blob/c20ccecfa1cf130a47d37908dc54959c618ce8ea/packages/create-react-app/createReactApp.js#L266-L270
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/863db9b0e2a7b038348202c040f90f050fd12855/packages/create-next-app/create-app.ts#L202-L212

[mcansh]

tests won't fail due to naming conflicts, we'll just get bombarded with jest haste warnings because of them. i haven't tried with no names, so i can't say for sure if it's fine without them

[pcattori]

I'm not sure I follow. What convenience does the name field provide?

@pcattori People are used to have a name in all their package.jsons, so I think we'll get PRs to add it (again) if we decide to remove it.

create-react-app & create-next-app also add name to package.json btw. https://github.com/facebook/create-react-app/blob/c20ccecfa1cf130a47d37908dc54959c618ce8ea/packages/create-react-app/createReactApp.js#L266-L270 https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/863db9b0e2a7b038348202c040f90f050fd12855/packages/create-next-app/create-app.ts#L202-L212

I don't think we'll get PRs to add it back in. People can just add their app name if they want to their app's package.json. We don't have an issue with that. But the template itself shouldn't include a name.

create-react-app and create-next-app also set name to be the app name, not the template name.

---

Nothing requires name or is more convenient (AFAIK) because of name, so we should omit it.

For those who like having a name field defined for their app, they are welcome to add one. They would have needed to edit it anyway if we had the template name set as the name, so omitting the name is not any more onerous than what we currently have (the template name).

[MichaelDeBoey]

They would have needed to edit it anyway if we had the template name set as the name, so omitting the name not any more onerous than what we currently have (the template name).

Good point!
Would it be a good idea to automatically add the app name as name instead?

[pcattori]

They would have needed to edit it anyway if we had the template name set as the name, so omitting the name not any more onerous than what we currently have (the template name).

Good point! Would it be a good idea to automatically add the app name as name instead?

I think its better to leave name out. Keeps create-remix simpler and makes it clear that its not required.