Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
713 lines (558 loc) · 19.4 KB

0000-overrides.md

File metadata and controls

713 lines (558 loc) · 19.4 KB
Raw

Dependency resolution overrides

Summary

Provide a mechanism for users to specify a different dependency resolution at a specific point in the tree.

This supercedes and replaces Implement a package override option.

This feature was discussed in the Open RFC Call on 2020-04-08.

Motivation

This addresses the following use cases:

  • There is a bug that is yet to be fixed in a transitive dependency in our project's tree. While awaiting the bugfix to be published, we wish to override any instances of the dependency with a known good version.
  • A security vulnerability is identified in a transitive dependency, but we are not able to upgrade the direct dependency pulling it in. An override would allow us to address the security issue in an easier way.
  • There should only be a single copy of a given dependency in our tree, but npm's dependency resolution will result in a duplicate due to version conflicts.
  • There is a transitive dependency X that exhibits a bug only when used in a particular way by another dependency Y. We wish to replace that instance of X, but only when included in the dependency graph of Y.
  • A developer working on breaking change to library may wish to test it in several dependent projects at once within a workspace. The only way to do this today is to point them all at a tarball or git repository, which can be tedious.

Detailed Explanation

Add a field to package.json called overrides, with the following shape:

{
  "overrides": {
    "<selection specifier>": "<result specifier or overrides set>"
  }
}

The key is a package specifier with a name. The value is either a package specifier without a name, or a nested overrides object. Nested override objects apply to dependency resolutions within the portion of the dependency graph indicated by the key, and may include a "." member with a string value to be applied to the node matching the override rule set key.

Only Root Package May Contain Overrides

The overrides key will only be considered when it is in the root package.json file for a project. overrides in installed dependencies (including workspaces) will not be considered in dependency tree resolution. Thus, there is no cascading overrides between multiple different package.json files at any given time.

Published packages may dictate their resolutions by pinning dependencies or using an npm-shrinkwrap.json file.

Applying overrides for workspaces and installed dependencies may be considered in a future RFC. However, there are considerable challenges in the implementation, user expectations, and security of such an approach.

Key Matching

An override key will be considered a match if the named package specifier would be satisfied by the dependency being considered for resolution.

For example, consider a tagged git dependency project@github:user/project#v1.0.0, which contains a package.json file with the version 1.0.0. In this case, the following override rule would apply:

{
  "[email protected]": "2.0.0"
}

Overridden Dependencies Are Valid

If a dependency is subject to an override that puts it outside of the stated dependency range for a dependent, it will still be considered valid if the overridden version would have satisfied the dependency.

For example, consider a package foo that depends on [email protected], installed in the context of this override rule:

{
  "bar@*": "2.0.0"
}

The resulting package tree on disk will have foo loading [email protected] when it does require('bar'). Despite this, it will not be treated as an invalid dependency, because [email protected] was valid prior to the override being applied.

String Overrides

When the value of an override rule is a string, it is a replacement resolution target for resolutions matching the key. String values must be a dependency specifier without a name. (Aliases are supported using the npm: alias specifier.)

String overrides within a given overrides object are applied in definition order, stopping at the first rule to match. For example:

{
  "overrides": {
    "y@1": "1.2.3",
    "[email protected]": "2.3.4" // <-- this will never match anything
  }
}

In this case, the [email protected] -> 2.3.4 rule will never be applied, because any y@1 dependency will be written to 1.2.3, and stop evaluating string override rules.

This prevents infinite regresses and loops, and greatly simplifies the feature both from an implementation and user experience point of view.

For example:

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected]": "2.0.0",
    "[email protected]": "3.0.0",
    "[email protected]": "1.0.0"
  }
}

In this case, a package that depends on [email protected] will instead be given [email protected]. A package that depends on [email protected] will instead be given [email protected]. What it will not do is apply the [email protected] override to [email protected], and then consider whether any other overrides apply to it, and so on. (In this case, it would create an infinite regress.)

A more realistic and less contrived case where a cascade could be desirable would be something like this:

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected]": "2.x", // <-- maybe 2.7.0, maybe some other 2.x
    "[email protected]": "2.7.0"
  }
}

In this case, we are saying that any webpack@1 dependencies should be bumped up to webpack@2, and furthermore, that any webpack@2 dependencies should be pinned to [email protected].

In practice, since rules are applied once and not stacked or cascaded, any webpack dependency that would resolve to a version matched by 2.x will be overridden to 2.7.0. But, any dependency that resolves to a version matched by 1.x will be set to whichever version happens to be the latest 2.x at the time of installation.

In order to produce the intended behavior described, the user would have to either specify it twice:

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected]": "2.7.0",
    "[email protected]": "2.7.0"
  }
}

Or make the dependency matching range wider:

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected] || 2.x": "2.7.0"
  }
}

Object Overrides

An object value in an overrides object defines a child rule set.

If the first match for a given resolution is an object, then the object is a new rule set applied to all resolutions down that path in the dependency graph.

For example, this override rule will set all versions of bar, but only those depended upon by foo.

{
  "foo": {
    "bar": "1.2.3"
  }
}

Like string overrides, object overrides are only applied if they are the first rule in the set to match a given package.

{
  "foo": "1.2.3",
  "[email protected]": {
    "bar": "2.3.4" // <-- this is never applied anywhere!
  }
}

In this case, because the foo rule will always match before the [email protected] rule, it takes precedence.

"." Key Within Object Overrides

In order to both the package being targeted and its dependents, the special key "." can be used within an object override rule set. For example, to set all versions of foo to 1.2.3 and also set bar to 2.3.4 when depended upon by foo, this ruleset could be used:

{
  "foo": {
    ".": "1.2.3",
    "bar": "2.3.4"
  }
}

The "." key is not relevant in the root overrides rule set, as the root package is not ever subject to dependency resolution.

Thus, these two override rulesets are equivalent:

// string-valued rule
{
  "foo": "1.0.0"
}
// object with . member
{
  "foo": {
    ".": "1.0.0"
  }
}

The "." member must have a string value, to prevent ambiguous resolutions.

// ambiguous and invalid!
{
  "foo": {
    ".": { // <-- raises error, "." must be a string value
      "bar": "1.0.0"
    },
    "bar": "2.0.0"
  }
}

Rules in Nested Rule Sets Override Parent Rules

Parent rules are inherited by nested rule sets, applied after the child rules.

For example:

{
  "foo": {
    ".": "1.0.0",
    "bar": {
      ".": "2.3.4",
      "baz": "3.0.0"
    },
    "baz": "2.0.0",
    "boo": "3.0.0"
  },
  "boo": "1.0.0"
}

In this case,

  1. All versions of foo are set to 1.0.0 by the foo > . rule.
  2. All versions of bar depended upon by foo are set to 2.3.4 by the foo > bar > . rule.
  3. All versions of baz depended upon by bar dependend upon by foo are set to 3.0.0 by the foo > bar > baz rule.
  4. All versions of baz depended upon by foo are set to 2.0.0, except those depended upon by bar.
  5. All versions of boo depended upon by foo (including those also depended upon by bar) are set to 3.0.0.
  6. All versions of boo in the tree are set to 1.0.0, except those depended upon by foo.

Rules Apply To All Transitive Dependencies

The assumption throughout this RFC is that nested dependency resolutions will be applied to all direct and transitive dependencies throughout the dependency graph from a given point.

In other words, the override {"x":{"c":"1.2.3"}} will apply to any c that exists anywhere in the dependency graph starting from any x, without differentiating between x -> a -> c vs a direct dependendency x -> c.

While this makes the override more powerful, and simplifies the implementation, it also increases the risk that an override may apply to packages that the user did not intend it to.

Supporting both overrides for an entire branch of the package tree and overrides limited to a direct dependency, would significantly increase the complexity of this feature.

Using a nested object expression that does not support ** or some equivalent, it would be extremely tedious and error-prone to expect the user to specify every path on the dependency graph where a module might be found. Furthermore, it is arguably better in most cases to apply the override too broadly rather than too narrowly.

Impact on Deduplication

Because the set of overrides that apply to a given node in the dependency graph will affect how its dependencies are resolved, a dependency must not be deduplicated against another instance that is subject to different override rules.

For example, consider the following dependency graph:

root -> (a@1, b@1)
a@1 -> c@1
b@1 -> c@1
c@1 -> d@1

Without any overrides in place, the tree on disk might look like this, with the c and d dependencies deduplicated:

root
+-- a@1
+-- b@1
+-- c@1
+-- d@1

However, consider the following override rule applied at the root project level:

{
  "overrides": {
    "b": {
      "d": "2"
    }
  }
}

The b package will still depend on c@1, just like a, but the c@1 that it depends on will in turn depend on d@2 rather than d@1.

Thus, the c dependency cannot be deduplicated. The tree on disk would look something like this:

root
+-- a@1
+-- b@1
|   +-- c@1
|   +-- d@2
+-- c@1

Because the dependency at root > b > c has a different set of overrides applied, it cannot be deduplicated against the dependency at root > a > c.

No Way to Remove Overrides

There is no way to remove an override for a portion of the tree. If an override rule causes problems for a portion of the dependency graph, then the user must either:

  1. Apply the override more narrowly, limiting the dependency paths where it is applied.
  2. Apply additional override rules for the dependency paths where the higher-level override causes problems.

Only Dependency Resolution is Considered or Mutated

The overrides rules are only used to modify the effective resolution target for dependencies, and only dependency resolution is used to match rules.

There is no facility for overriding based on other factors, such as platform, operating system, or other package metadata.

There is no facility for mutating package metadata.

Caveat: Overrides May Cause Duplication

While overrides can be used to reduce duplication, it is not guaranteed.

Consider the following dependency graph:

root -> (x@*, y@*)
x@1 -> (y@1)
x@2 -> (y@2)
y@1 -> (x@1)
y@2 -> (x@2)

By default, this would result in the following package tree on disk:

root
+-- x@2
+-- y@2

When installed with the following override rules:

{
  "x@1": {
    "y": "2"
  },
  "y@1": {
    "x": "2"
  },
  "x@2": {
    "y": "1"
  },
  "y@2": {
    "x": "1"
  }
}

The resulting package tree looks like this:

root
+-- y@2 (inherits {"x":"1"} rule set)
|   +-- x@1 (overridden by "y@2 > x" rule)
|       (x@1 -> y@1 dep overridden by `"y@1": "2"` rule, and deduped above)
+-- x@2 (inherits {"y": "1"} rule set)
    +-- y@1 (overridden by "x@2 > y" rule)
        (y@1 -> x@1 dep overridden by `"x@1": "2"` rule, and deduped above)

Where previously there were 2 packages installed, now there are 4.

More Examples

To replace all versions of x with a version 1.2.3 throughout the tree:

{
  "overrides": {
    "x": "1.2.3"
  }
}

If a bug is found in [email protected], which is known to be fixed in 1.2.4, then bump only that dependency (but anything that resolves to 1.2.2 or 1.2.4 should be left alone.)

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected]": "1.2.4"
  }
}

To replace all versions of [email protected] with version 1.2.3, but only when used as a dependency of [email protected]:

{
  "overrides": {
    "[email protected]": {
      "[email protected]": "1.2.3"
    }
  }
}

To replace all instances of underscore with lodash:

{
  "overrides": {
    "underscore": "npm:lodash"
  }
}

To force all versions of react to be 15.6.2, except when used by the dependencies of tap (which depends on ink and requires react@16):

{
  "overrides": {
    "react": "15.6.2",
    "tap": {
      "react": "16"
    }
  }
}

To use a known good git fork of metameta, but only when used as a dependency of foo when foo is a dependency of bar:

{
  "overrides": {
    "bar": {
      "foo": {
        "metameta": "git+ssh://[email protected]/metameta#known-good"
      }
    }
  }
}

Combining Overrides

This algorithm gives rise to the following behaviors and edge cases when applying rules throughout the dependency resolution process.

Multiple String Value Overrides

A deliberately extreme example:

{
  "overrides": {
    "y@1": "1.2.3",
    "[email protected]": "1.2.4",       // not relevant
    "[email protected]": "1.2.5",     // not relevant
    "y@>1.2 <1.3": "1.2.6", // not relevant
    "[email protected]": "1.2.3"      // not relevant
  }
}

In this case, all the rules after the first are irrelevant, because only the first rule to match will have any effect.

Swapping

It is possible to "swap" versions. This will not cause an infinite regress, because only the first rule will be applied.

{
  "overrides": {
    "swap@1": "2",
    "swap@2": "1"
  }
}

In this case, any version matching swap@1 will be overridden to swap@2. Any version initially matching swap@2 will be overridden to swap@1. Because rules do not stack, there is no infinite regress.

Combining String Value Overrides with Object Value Overrides

There are cases where it may be desirable to lock a version of a given package down to a specific version within the tree, and override the version of one of its dependencies.

Use the "." key for this.

For example:

{
  "y": {
    ".": "1.0.2",
    "x": "5.0.3"
  }
}

Inheriting String Value Overrides Within Child Object Overrides

When a string value override rule is defined at the top level, it is inherited by child override rule sets.

For example, consider that y depends on both x and z.

{
  "y": {
    "z": "1.2.3"
  },
  "x": "1.2.3"
}

Within the y branch of the dependency graph, x will be overridden to [email protected] and z will be overridden to [email protected].

Elsewhere within the dependency graph, x will be overridden to 1.2.3, but z will not be overridden.

Reasoning for Calling This "overrides"

The name "overrides" was chosen for the following reasons:

This feature is fundamentally different from Yarn resolutions, and closer in both effect and intent to overrides in Bower and Dep. As there are fundamental semantic differences, it would not be possible to reliably translate a Yarn resolutions field to the format described here. Therefor, it ought to be a different key.

Using this feature should be considered a hack in most cases, something that is done temporarily while waiting for a bug to be fixed, or to avoid excessive duplication caused by an overly strict meta-dependency specifier.

"Resolutions" sounds resolved and ok; "overrides" sounds like we're going against the package manager's recommendations. (Not all npm users are native English speakers, but enough are that this connotation is worth considering.)

Prior Art and Alternatives

  • Yarn Selective Dependency Resolutions

    This feature is very similar to yarn resolutions. However, it avoids the following problems:

    • Using path/glob syntax for a graph traversal is somewhat challenging. In particular the ** and * behavior is not well defined, and given the other areas where we use paths and globs (files and workspaces in particular) it sets an expectation that negating and advanced glob patterns would be supported.
    • Because yarn resolutions must indicate a specific version, it limits the use cases that we can support.

  • Prior Package Overrides RFC

    Limiting a package name to only a specific version, and preventing it from being used in published projects, is unnecessarily limiting.

    Furthermore, the prior RFC was unclear whether dependencies with a replace field would have their replacements respected. Allowing replacements in nested dependencies is hazardous, and a warning without an action is an antipattern, as it tends to train users out of expecting that warnings should be acted upon.

  • Pub dependency_overrides

    Pub uses a dependency override option that allows defining a specific source or version. As Dart does not use nested dependencies for conflict resolution, this is effectively the same as the feature this RFC describes, but without the nested override support.

  • Bower resolutions

    Bower, like Pub, uses a flat dependency graph, and so conflicts must be resolved by the user. When a user chooses an option in a dependency conflict, the resolution is saved to the bower.json file in the resolutions field, and used for future conflicts. As Bower does not use nested dependencies for conflict resolution, this is effectively the same as the feature this RFC describes, but without the nested override support.

Questions and Bikeshedding

  • Should bundleDependencies and shrinkwrap dependencies be subject to overrides? It would be a change to those contracts, and impose additional implementation challenges, but my suspicion is that the user expectation is that they would be overridden.

    If they are not, then it needs to be called out in the overrides documentation.

    If they are, then the implementation needs to be updated to consider the challenges involved.

    This question will be revisited when we have running code to establish whether the implementation challenge will be as significant as expected.