Handling interaction with package.json

[ScottyB]

Aims to address issues with interacting with a package.json file.

From #35:

1. Add option :persist true to persist package.json that overwrites properties except for dependencies.
2. Motivation for this pull request :).
3. Dependencies specified in package.json are merged with dependencies in project.clj. As long as :package or :main aren't specified, properties won't get overwritten in package.json. Let me know if this behaviour needs to be changed.

Hopefully this addresses #23 as well.

[RyanMcG]

1. Dependencies specified in package.json are merged with dependencies in project.clj. As long as :package or :main aren't specified, properties won't get overwritten in package.json. Let me know if this behaviour needs to be changed.

I think it might need changed :(.

This means that package.json will be the source of truth for project name and other attributes. My 3 from #35 was to allow for an option to be specified to opt-in to this behaviour. Here's what is what I am thinking that is driving this decision:

Users want to either:

1. Make project.clj 's :npm hash the source of truth for their package.json OR
2. Use lein-npm to simply augment their package.json.

Your implementation does not seem to behave well for 1 (package.json attribtues override those from project.clj).

I think "Merge unique dependencies in package.json and project.clj" needs some tests.

[ScottyB]

Thanks for the feedback. I've made the changes you suggested to the first commit.

I think it might need changed :(.

No worries, I figured this would probably be the case. Thanks for explaining your thoughts. The current implementation was intended to make project.clj's :npm the source of truth unless :package attributes were added. I'll clean up the code and add some tests.

[RyanMcG]

(and (not (persist-package-json? project))
     (.exists (package-file-from-project project)))

That's the indentation style I am used to. May I ask what editor/configuration you are using? Not a big deal.
Upon a more meticulous read it seems there are other indentation inconsistencies too.

I think we should be following this guide.

[RyanMcG]

@ScottyB let me know if you need anything from me. I want to encourage contribution but I don't want quality to suffer. If you'd prefer me to take this over from your starting point, that's an option too, I just don't want to "steal" this away if you want it merged without modification.

P.S. I'm open to feedback on my feedback.

[ScottyB]

@RyanMcG No worries, I'm new to Clojurescript so happy to get the feedback. I'm keen to finish what I started but I'll be away for the next few weeks so if it can't wait I'm cool if you finish it off. When I get back I'll give it some more thought and will probably have some questions then :).

[gtebbutt]

Just wondering if there's any progress on this? Being able to persist the package.json would be a big help for deploying compiled projects. Thanks!

[RyanMcG]

@gtebbutt @ScottyB feel free to pick this up.

I'm in the midst of job change and move. I hope to pick this up in February though. I know that's not great and I apologize for the delay.

[chancerussell]

My team would find it useful to have a mode of operation where the package.json gets dumped on command, always completely overwriting if an older one is present. We need the package.json for launching the application via electron, but we'd prefer to treat it as a build artifact, if that makes sense.