-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update knit proposal #73
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ | ||
- Start Date: 2017-01-13 | ||
- RFC PR: https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs/pull/41 | ||
- Yarn Issue: https://github.com/yarnpkg/yarn/issues/1213 | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
|
||
This is a proposal to improve upon `yarn link` so that developers can more accurately test in-development versions of their libraries from their apps or other libraries. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
|
||
`yarn link` (and `npm link` before it) have several problems when working on code bases of non-trivial sizes, especially with multiple apps. The current `link` command doesn't isolate `node_modules` between apps (especially problematic with the advent of Electron), it doesn't allow for working on multiple versions of a library, and it produces a `node_modules` hierarchy that is not faithful to the one produced after the library is published. | ||
|
||
# Detailed design | ||
|
||
## Desired behavior | ||
|
||
The `yarn link` workflow should mimic publishing a package (ex: `dep`) to npm and then installing it in a dependent (ex: `app`), and keep this constraint while you're making changes to the first package. Concretely, `yarn link` should make it so that when you save a change to `dep`, the resulting state is as if you: | ||
1. Ran `npm publish` in `dep` (assume that it can clobber an existing version, and that you're publishing to a local registry on just your computer). | ||
2. Ran `yarn add dep` in `app`. | ||
|
||
## Why this behavior is great | ||
|
||
This solves several problems that "yarn link" has today: | ||
|
||
#### Isolating `node_modules` correctly | ||
|
||
You can install `dep` in two different apps without sharing the `node_modules` of `dep`. This is a problem with Electron apps, whose V8 version is different than Node's and uses a different ABI. If you have `node-app` and `electron-app` that both depend on `dep`, the native dependencies of `dep` need to be recompiled separately for each app; `node-app/n_m/dep/n_m` must not be the same as `electron-app/n_m/dep/n_m`. | ||
|
||
#### Working on multiple versions | ||
|
||
You can be developing multiple different versions of `dep`. Say you have two directories, `dep-1` and `dep-2`, which have your v1 and v2 branches checked out, respectively. With "yarn link" it's not possible to make both of these directories linkable at the same time. | ||
|
||
This is a problem when you are developing & testing `dep-1` with `old-app` and `dep-2` with `new-app`. You don't want to be going back and forth between `dep-1` and `dep-2` running "yarn link" each time you switch which app you're testing. | ||
|
||
#### Faithfully representing the `node_modules` hierarchy | ||
|
||
Currently `yarn link` symlinks the entire package directory, which brings along its `node_modules` subdirectory with it. With dependency deduping and flattening, bringing in `dep/node_modules` wholesale usually produces a different `node_modules` hierarchy than running `yarn install` in `app` and installing everything from npm. This isn't a problem most of the time but it does go against Yarn's spirit of consistency and the lockfile. | ||
|
||
## A practical proposal | ||
|
||
This is a proposal that solves all of the problems above and isn't too hard to implement or understand. Conceptually, we find all the files we'd normally publish to npm, pack them up using symlinks instead of copies of the files, publish the pack to a local registry (just a directory), and then when installing we look up packages in the local registry directory instead of npm. | ||
|
||
### Running "yarn link --pack" inside of `dep` | ||
|
||
This is the step that simulates publishing `dep`. Running `yarn link --pack` in `dep` finds all the files that "yarn publish" would pack up and upload to npm. Crucially, this excludes `node_modules`, and would follow the same algorithm as "yarn publish" such as reading package.json's `files` field. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The disadvantage is that you need to run
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Not quite. You have to run There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, I've missed that point. I understand that your goal for this change is to improve iteration speed when you are actively developing I think the goal should be to achieve correctness of Am I right you want to have this setup?
I think you won't be able to achieve the right isolation with symlinks inside There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, that's the right idea. The dir in the app symlinks to a global directory which contains symlinks to individual files/directories in the root of the dependency. My goal for this feature is to have something that works as closely to It's a benefit that it happens to be closer to what you'd actually publish, but not the main goal for me. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am not a big fan of multiple symlinks that work around node_modules and .yarnignore. And yeah, it goes the other direction with the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The reason it make it global is so when you re-"publish" (e.g. after adding a new file) you don't also have to re-"install" in every project that uses that dependency. This is because those projects point to the global directory, not to the individual files, so updating the global cascades the updates everywhere. As for cleaning up references, we have a couple options:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Makes sense if you have multiple projects refer the same package. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah at work we tend to build our apps as a composition of a bunch of libraries, and we have several different apps which all use some of the same libraries. Setting up and maintaining the links between all of our repos has been a huge pain for us, which is why I'm invested in this feature. Our devs work on different parts of our apps which live across repos all the time, so we want to keep things linked generally. I've written some automation to setup the repos locally for everyone and link everything together using the POC of this yarn feature, and it seems to work pretty well. Ideally we'd use workspaces, but since we have many libraries that are used across different applications, it would be hard to go the monorepo route for us. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for clarifying and investing in this feature, @devongovett.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. FWIW the linking behavior is what we (Expo) want, whatever the name of the feature ends up being. These are our needs: (a) we have a repo with multiple apps and multiple libraries Separately, we also do have a need for packing up a library (to simulate publishing) and installing in an app -- this happens in our continuous integration systems. This behavior is even closer to publishing+installing a library, which is why we use it in CI. We run something like: However, in CI we don't need a tight feedback loop between editing library code and seeing the effects of those edits in an app. During development, we want to edit library code and see the app change immediately, which is why symlinks are appealing. We have a solution for CI already ( |
||
|
||
Then it simulates publishing `dep`: it creates a directory named `dep-X.Y.Z` (where `X.Y.Z` is the version of `dep` in its package.json) inside of a global directory like `~/.yarn-link`. A symlink is created for each file or directory that `yarn publish` would normally have packed up. This step shares some conceptual similarities with publishing to a registry, except it uses symlinks and it's local on your computer. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Should we use cache folder for this instead? How about There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Potentially, though there should only be symlinks in the global registry anyway, so I don't think it should get that large. Putting it in the cache folder might cause your linked modules to suddenly stop working e.g. after a reboot, which would be weird IMO. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, we'll defer this discussion once we agree on the model |
||
|
||
### Running "yarn add dep --link" inside of `app` | ||
|
||
This behaves like normal `yarn add dep` except that it looks at the versions of `dep` that are in the global `~/.yarn-link` folder and takes the latest one rather than installing from a normal registry. (You also could run "yarn add [email protected] --link" if you wanted a more specific version, as usual.) | ||
|
||
It then runs most of the same installation steps that `yarn add dep` would. It symlinks `app/node_modules/dep` to `~/.yarn-link/dep-X.Y.Z` as `yarn link dep` does. Then it installs the dependencies of `dep` as usual by fetching them from npm. Finally it runs postinstall scripts. | ||
|
||
### Running "yarn install --link" inside of `app` | ||
|
||
This behaves like normal `yarn install` but automatically links any dependencies that have been set up locally with `yarn link`. This is very useful when you have an application with many locally developed dependencies so that you don't have to manually run `yarn link dep` for each one inside your app. | ||
|
||
# Comparison with other Yarn features | ||
|
||
There are already several ways of linking dependencies in Yarn. This section is a comparison of them, and explains why these new options are still valuable to add. | ||
|
||
* `yarn link` without the `--pack` option is similar to `yarn link --pack` but links directories instead of files. This means that any `node_modules` inside linked dependencies are also included, breaking the flattened and deduped tree that yarn normally provides. Many other differences have already been discussed in this RFC. Ideally, the behavior of `yarn link` would be what the `--pack` option provides, but for backwards compatibility and to match the behavior of `npm link`, `yarn link` would stay around as is. | ||
|
||
* `link://` dependencies are similar to `yarn link dep` but actually closer to what `yarn add dep --link` would provide. `link://` dependencies also cause the linked module's dependencies to be installed locally, so as long as there is no `node_modules` folder inside the linked dependency, it would work identically to `yarn add dep --link`. The existing implementation of `link://` dependencies could be used to implement the `--link` option. | ||
|
||
* `file://` dependencies cause files to be copied instead of linked. This is not as useful because it means you must re-install every time a change is made to the dependency. | ||
|
||
* `yarn pack` + `yarn install dep.tgz` is similar to `file://` dependencies. The pack + install process must be re-run every time a change is made. It does correctly dedupe dependencies, however, as `node_modules` are excluded by `yarn pack`. | ||
|
||
* [Workspaces](https://github.com/yarnpkg/rfcs/pull/66) are similar but solve a different problem. Where workspaces are great for a tree of related modules (e.g. a monorepo), these options are for linking together modules in separate trees, e.g. things that might be shared between multiple workspaces. | ||
|
||
# How We Teach This | ||
|
||
This proposal is mostly additive and affects only how people work on libraries that they are using in their apps. We would want to document the new options in the "CLI Commands" section of the docs and perhaps add a new section to "The Yarn Workflow". | ||
|
||
`yarn link` would stay around, so people migrating from the npm client wouldn't have to learn anything new at first. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
|
||
One issue with this proposal is that it's not clear what to put in the lockfile after running `yarn add dep --link` since we don't have an npm URL for the dep yet -- it hasn't been published to npm. | ||
|
||
Another issue is that if you change package.json in `dep`, namely changing a dependency or modifying the `files` entry, you have to run `cd dep; yarn link --pack`. Same if you add a file at the top level of the dependency since each file is linked individually. This isn't so bad as those changes are probably more rare than saving changes to existing files. | ||
|
||
Also, if you update the code in dep and bump its version, say from 1.0.0 to 1.1.0, the symlinks in ~/.yarn-link/dep-1.0.0 will still point to the code in your working directory, which now contains 1.1.0 code. | ||
|
||
The symlinks might break but I think that's mostly OK since at that point you're done working on dep and have published it to npm and it's easy to go run `yarn add dep` in app and not use the symlinks anymore. | ||
|
||
If you want to truly pin the versions of linked packages then you'd need to have a different working directory for each version. (Git worktrees are great for this use case actually. Worktrees let you check out a repo once and then magically create semi-clones of it in separate directories, with the constraint that the worktrees need to be on different branches, which is totally OK in this scenario. The worktrees all share the same Git repo though, so if you commit in one worktree you can cherry pick that commit within another worktree.) | ||
|
||
Finally, another issue is with the way the node require resolution algorithm works. Dependencies of symlinked modules are resolved relative to the realpath, not the symlink. This means that you'll still get duplicates if both modules depend on a third dependency, or errors if that dependency is not installed in either place. This is solved by the recently added runtime option for node `--preserve-symlinks`, which skips getting the realpath when resolving modules. Something similar would need to be added to browserify/webpack to solve this there as well. I recently opened a [PR for browserify](https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/pull/1742) to support the same option. | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions |
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think the proposal will solve this issue. Node.js calls
realpath
on every "module". So even when files are linked instead of the whole folder, any lookup origining from the linked module will resolve in therealpath
-> in thenode_modules
folder of the linked dependency and not in the app's node_modules.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not when run with
--preserve-symlinks
: https://nodejs.org/api/cli.html#cli_preserve_symlinks. See drawbacks section. I think webpack already supports such an option as well, and I tried to patch browserify. browserify/browserify#1742There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah I see, that makes sense.