Makee it possiblee to disable optional dependecies for a module in package.json

[Pajn]

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
a feature

What is the current behavior?
To avoid installing optional dependencies I have to use a flag every time I run yarn. Also that flag is global so I can't ignore optional dependencies for package A but install them for package B.

What is the expected behavior?
It should be possible to specify in package.json that I never want optional dependecies for a package.
For example

"mosca": {
  "version": "^2.7.0",
  "optionalDependencies": false
}

In the future it would be nice if I could be even more granular and for example only install zmq from mosca but not leveldown or the others. However the immediate need is to just disable all of them.

[bestander]

There is --ignore-optional flag, I just added it to docs https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/install#toc-yarn-install-ignore-engines

[Pajn]

This is not the --ignore-optional flag. --ignore-optional is 1. a blanket rule and not for a specific dependency and 2. not included in the package json meaning that it must be applied every time yarn install is run.

[bestander]

Ah, I see, thanks for clarification

[bestander]

Got it.
IMHO I would disable optional and bundled dependencies altogether instead of adding more workarounds for them to function.

[Pajn]

Some packages do need them though. For example mosca, I do not personally need any of its optional dependencies (which are native deps and do take a long time to compile) but if one used its more powerful features those would be required.

But an option in yarnrc to at least always apply that flag in a project as it otherwise must be documented to always use and can still be forgotten would be a great start.

[bestander]

@Pajn, actually you can set it up via .yarnrc files per project https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/yarnrc#toc-cli-arguments

[Pajn]

Just for reference:

This can be considered a duplicate of #5251 providing basically the same feature but configured differently. I would very happy with either solution.

#4611 which is more general would also provide a solution to this issue.