Open theKashey opened 2 years ago
I agree with this. The "Root has devDependencies" is too opiniated.
Also the main reason "The root package.json of a monorepo is not published" is incorrect. There are many uses in having root dependencies or not, in prod or dev. Examples:
Hence my need for "devDependencies" and not "dependencies".
I second this, but would prefer to see this as an option, defaulting to the current behaviour. This would then necessitate another rule for those of us who use Bolt: Ensure that any dependency in a sub-package that's in dependencies
is in the root package.json's dependencies
, and the same for devDependencies
. This would be mutually exclusive with the "Root has devDependencies" rule and perhaps only active for monorepo package managers that require all dependencies be declared in the root. (Bolt is the only one that I know about.) Having said that, I'm aware that @mitchellhamilton recommends Yarn workspaces over Bolt.
My use case: I'm Dockerizing a Next.js app in the monorepo and I want to exclude devDependencies
for a smaller Docker image. I have to Dockerize from the root because of symlinks.
I have a similar use case to @Offirmo and @steve-taylor. I want to install certain deps when installing on my machine but need a way to ignore them when installing in a Docker container. The only method of doing so I'm aware of is to pass -P
to my pnpm install
command in my Docker image's configuration while having the deps I don't want in devDependencies
.
I agree this rule is too opinionated and there needs to be a way to ignore it.
I'm using pnpm workspaces.
Although, I just found out that I was able to add this property to my root package.json
to ignore this rule. Doing so added --allow-devDependencies
to my manypkg check
command. Perhaps the methods to ignore this rule just need to be better documented as it wasn't obvious from the README that you can do this.
"manypkg": {
"ignoredRules": [
"ROOT_HAS_DEV_DEPENDENCIES",
]
},
I would like to raise a concern about this rule mostly due to the problem with
npm audit
and the general expectation of some underlaying tools that only dependencies should be scanned for vulnerabilities.Still creates a huge room for some uncertainly of decision which dep should do where, but I would like to have this rule configurable.