module: add findPackageJSON util

[JakobJingleheimer]

#55229 was too controversial, so back to the original idea from #55173.

Closes #55229

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/loaders

[ljharb]

so is this basically just https://www.npmjs.com/package/find-pkg / https://www.npmjs.com/package/pkg-up / https://www.npmjs.com/package/package-up ?

[JakobJingleheimer]

"Just" seems a little dismissive 😕

The first package was last updated 7 years ago (so it may well be outdated, plus its cited limitations).

The second package is deprecated.

The third is maybe similar/close; it appears to only do direct path manipulation and won't respect module resolution (ex from a loader hook), which this does respect.

Edit: looking closer, the third package has several limitations that this does not, such how it handles relative search (cwd vs current module location) and, AFAICS, it does not handle node_modules.

This package is also leveraging/mirroring node's internals, so it will behave exactly as node is doing internally (whereas userland may not, and would have to re-invent the wheel to do so).

[ljharb]

apologies, you're right, a better way to phrase it is "is this the same capability as these packages".

Certainly doing this internally in node is better for tons of reasons, and I'm glad you're adding it :-) I wanted to confirm what the semantics were, is all.

[JakobJingleheimer]

I wanted to confirm what the semantics were, is all.

Ah, yes then 🙂

[JakobJingleheimer]

The markdown linter is complaining about a codeblock that has no language. It's a directory listing—language is not applicable (it just needs the default codeblock treatment).

Can I disable the rule for that block?

[ljharb]

can you tag it as sh?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.80478% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.41%. Comparing base (53b1050) to head (ba9acf9).
Report is 686 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/internal/modules/package_json_reader.js	99.08%	2 Missing ⚠️
lib/internal/modules/cjs/loader.js	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #55412      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.42%   88.41%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         654      654              
  Lines      187552   187657     +105     
  Branches    36087    36117      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits       165839   165919      +80     
- Misses      14950    14972      +22     
- Partials     6763     6766       +3     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/modules/esm/resolve.js	96.17% <100.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
lib/module.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/modules/cjs/loader.js	97.59% <90.90%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
lib/internal/modules/package_json_reader.js	99.40% <99.08%> (-0.60%)	⬇️

... and 34 files with indirect coverage changes

[JakobJingleheimer]

can you tag it as sh?

That could hack around it, but it would enable shell syntax highlighting. There should be no syntax highlighting.

[targos]

What about text? It's already used in many places of the docs.

[JakobJingleheimer]

What about text? It's already used in many places of the docs.

Huzzah! perfect. I didn't know that was an option. Thanks!

[mcollina]

lgtm

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63167/