You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just thinking of this : If a package has a npm-shrinkwrap.json file, any (production) dependencies should also appear in the shrinkwrap.
I'm proposing to add a new option (checkShrinkwrap: bool?) to add an additional check for dependencies (that we know are production dependencies), to verify that they also appear at the top level of the shrinkwrap.
What do you think?
PS: Yup. This rule has a lot of options...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
My new barometer for rule creation/mutation is "will I immediately be glad I can use this?"
If no: not right now.
It would be cool to validate that shrinkwrap matches dependencies, but that feels more like a script to call during posttest/prepublish than a lint rule.
But again: if you'll use it and be glad you have it, do it. 😄
My new barometer for rule creation/mutation is "will I immediately be glad I can use this?"
Sounds like a good rule of thumb 👍
I need to talk about it to colleagues, but I think we'd definitely use it at work. It happens sometimes (too often at least) that dependencies are added to the projects without the shrinkwrap being updated. I agree that a separate tool could be used for this (there probably exists some, don't know any, but I haven't looked for any either), but I think that this would be a nice addition here. It would be one less think to set up in a project, as ESLint configs are shareable, but build processes are not.
Now that I think of it, this could get a bit harder when there are multiple shrinkwraps in a project (as we've seen with the multiple package.json issues), though I don't know if (and thus how...) that is used somehow.
Just thinking of this : If a package has a
npm-shrinkwrap.json
file, any (production) dependencies should also appear in the shrinkwrap.I'm proposing to add a new option (
checkShrinkwrap: bool
?) to add an additional check for dependencies (that we know are production dependencies), to verify that they also appear at the top level of the shrinkwrap.What do you think?
PS: Yup. This rule has a lot of options...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: