fix(js): aliased packages are pruned from package-lock.json

[kdawgwilk]

Current Behavior

When enabling the generatePackageJson flag for js build targets the pruned package-lock.json file is invalid. When npm ci is ran you get the following errors

npm ERR! code EUSAGE
npm ERR! 
npm ERR! `npm ci` can only install packages when your package.json and package-lock.json or npm-shrinkwrap.json are in sync. Please update your lock file with `npm install` before continuing.
npm ERR! 
npm ERR! Missing: [email protected] from lock file
npm ERR! Missing: [email protected] from lock file
npm ERR! Missing: [email protected] from lock file
npm ERR! Missing: [email protected] from lock file

Expected Behavior

The pruned package-lock.json generated is valid and can be installed via npm ci

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #17653

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nx-dev	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Mar 8, 2024 0:25am

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit e766785. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution

---

🟥 Failed Commands
nx affected --targets=lint,test,build --base=46592d79128b14ca3e98d62fe78be6aed4633505 --head=e766785c5092ef4b72ef5a268f6152ef92f01f1e --parallel=3

✅ Successfully ran 4 targets

• nx run-many -t check-imports check-commit check-lock-files check-codeowners documentation --parallel=1 --no-dte
• nx-cloud record -- nx format:check --base=46592d79128b14ca3e98d62fe78be6aed4633505 --head=e766785c5092ef4b72ef5a268f6152ef92f01f1e
• nx documentation --no-dte
• nx affected -t e2e-macos --parallel=1 --base=46592d79128b14ca3e98d62fe78be6aed4633505 --head=e766785c5092ef4b72ef5a268f6152ef92f01f1e

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[kdawgwilk]

Just have a failing test at this point but will be looking into fixing the failure

[meeroslav]

This PR doesn't seem to include any code changes, just additional test and fixture. Is that intended or this got lost during the rebase?

[kdawgwilk]

@meeroslav I was intending to come back and write the code to get the failing test passing but I am not longer working for the company that was running into this issue so I will likely not be coming back to this PR. However I do think this is an issue that still needs to be addressed

[kdawgwilk]

@meeroslav did #23474 fix this as well?

[meeroslav]

Yes, the #23474 was fixing this exact problem

[github-actions]

This pull request has already been merged/closed. If you experience issues related to these changes, please open a new issue referencing this pull request.