Mithril's Bundler overrides Ruby Bundler in 'npm run' scripts

[illarionvk]

I'm working on an app that will be hosted on Github Pages. I use github-pages gem to compile the static site with Jekyll locally.

I use npm scripts in package.json to run the build task:

//...
  "scripts": {
    "build": "bundle exec jekyll build",
  }
//...

The bundle exec command should launch Ruby Bundler gem, but it launches Mithril's Bundler instead. This happens because npm scripts look up executables in node_modules/.bin folder first.

Ruby Bundler is far more popular than Mithril's Bundler. Would you consider renaming the executable in .bin folder from bundle to mithril-bundle?

[illarionvk]

For now I'm using a postinstall script to remove Mithril's bundle symlink from node_modules/.bin:

//…
  "scripts": {
    "postinstall": "rm -f node_modules/.bin/bundle",
    //…
  }
//…

[barneycarroll]

@illarionvk so installing Mithril as an NPM dependency adds Mithril's bundle NPM script to the node scripts of your dependent package? That seems like broken NPM behaviour, surely?

[illarionvk]

@barneycarroll Installing Mithril as an NPM dependency adds a symlink of Mithril's bundle executable to ./node_module/.bin/ folder:

[pygy]

@barneycarroll I think it is intentional in order to allow meta-packages of commands.

I'm surprised there's no way to bypass the node_modules/.bin folder when calling commands...

[illarionvk]

@barneycarroll This is a standard NPM behavior:

Any bin files are symlinked to ./node_modules/.bin/, so that they may be found by npm scripts when necessary.
https://docs.npmjs.com/files/folders

[barneycarroll]

I'm extremely surprised by this behaviour. Apparently it was introduced in npm@3 as a necessary measure to allow dependency scripts to function with a flattened dependency tree. But the notion that dependency scripts should affect your path really seems like an unacceptable oversight to that solution.

The change to Mithril you're proposing makes sense, but the underlying issue is an NPM bug AFAIC. What if a dependency has a cd script? Should all NPM packages ensure they have globally unique script keys? 🤔

[illarionvk]

Yarn doesn't symlink stuff to .bin folder and a lot of people think it breaks compatibility.

You have control over the symlink names of Mithril's binaries in package.json:

https://github.com/lhorie/mithril.js/blob/next/package.json#L32

[dead-claudia]

:-\

And this adds to the list of reasons why I feel it shouldn't be publicly exported. (I've noted this opinion of mine multiple times in the past.)

[barneycarroll]

OK I totally missed the point @illarionvk, thought you were talking about npm script references as opposed to bins. I don't see any reason why ospec and bundler can't be referenced by explicit path since they're only used in npm scripts anyway. What do we think?

[dead-claudia]

@barneycarroll ospec is okay exporting a binary, since it's like Mocha and Tape, and is a more general purpose test utility. It shouldn't be published with the mithril package, as that's feature creep. bundler is very specific to Mithril, and is hardly useful anywhere else, as has been noted on several occasions by @tivac and I, so that should be relegated to explicit paths.

[lhorie]

^ agree