[BUG] `npm find-dupes` and `npm dedupe --dry-run` doesn't print anything useful

[isaacs]

Current Behavior:

$ npm find-dupes

added 24 packages, removed 1 package, and changed 1 package in 10s

59 packages are looking for funding
  run `npm fund` for details

Expected Behavior:

$ npx npm@6 find-dupes
move	source-map	0.5.7	node_modules/@babel/core/node_modules/source-map		node_modules/tap/node_modules/@babel/core/node_modules/source-map
move	@babel/helper-annotate-as-pure	7.10.4	node_modules/@babel/helper-annotate-as-pure		node_modules/tap/node_modules/@babel/helper-annotate-as-pure
move	@babel/helper-builder-react-jsx	7.10.4	node_modules/@babel/helper-builder-react-jsx		node_modules/tap/node_modules/@babel/helper-builder-react-jsx
move	@babel/helper-member-expression-to-functions	7.10.5	node_modules/@babel/helper-member-expression-to-functions		node_modules/tap/node_modules/@babel/helper-member-expression-to-functions
... etc

Steps To Reproduce:

Run npm find-dupes or npm dedupe --dry-run in npm v7.

Perhaps any call into lib/utils/reify-output.js with npm.flatOptions.dryRun === true, it should print much more details about the diff. Just saying "2 packages added, 3 packages removed, etc" is not so helpful, if it didn't actually do those things.

Environment:

All environments, npm v7.5.4

[chowkapow]

Hey! I would like to work on this issue.

How can I test the output for my changes in dedupe.js in local to see if it can match the expected behavior?

await arb.dedupe(this.npm.flatOptions)
// await reifyOutput(this.npm, arb);
await reifyFinish(this.npm, arb);

[chowkapow]

Figured out how to test locally with bin/npm-cli.js. 😊

Now I'm trying to set npm.flatOptions.dryRun === true before calling reify-output() as suggested.
However, I'm getting errors saying it's not a settable property, e.g. this.npm.flatOptions.dryRun = true.

Any more tips?

[isaacs]

Hey, @chowkapow! Thanks for diving into this UX issue.

We are in the process of a somewhat massive overhaul of the way that configuration parameters are handled and managed. It may be easiest at the current moment to base your work on the release-next branch for the time being, and then rebase onto latest once the next version is shipped.

In that branch, you'll see in the lib/find-dupes.js command that it has these lines:

class FindDupes {
  // ... description, name, eventually a usage() method, etc.
  exec (args, cb) {
    this.npm.config.set('dry-run', true)
    this.npm.commands.dedupe([], cb)
  }
}

That's the appropriate way to set configs now. The flatOptions.dryRun flag will be set based on calling npm.config.set('dry-run', true) (so the internal flatOptions and the user-facing config fields are always kept in sync). There will be more cleanup and refactoring in this area, but this should be the consistent pattern moving forward -- internally, npm/cli uses this.npm.config.set() and this.npm.config.get() with the hyphenated names, and all the deps use the camelCase flattened option names.

As a first pass here, since we also want similar behavior for npm install --dry-run, npm update --dry-run, and so on, I'd suggest adding the appropriate output in the lib/utils/reify-output.js module. reifyOutput takes an npm object as the first parameter, so it could do something like this:

const reifyOutput = (npm, arb) => {
  // don't print any info in --silent mode

  // XXX: maybe it _should_ print something in dry-run anyway?
  // I'm not sure.  Even if it's "silent", isn't the pretty printed diff
  // kind of "the point" when it's a dry-run?  Maybe play with this?
  if (log.levels[log.level] > log.levels.error)
    return

  const { diff, actualTree } = arb

  // XXX: added bit here, not sure if it goes here?  Should it be
  // later?  Earlier?  Some room for creativity/iteration here.
  if (npm.config.get('dry-run')) {
    // a method that will show what WOULD have been done
    prettyPrintDiff(diff) // might need to pass the npm object, if anything in here is config-specific?
    // maybe return?  Maybe it makes sense to still print the rest?
    // this is where we should try some stuff and see what UX feels right
  }

That prettyPrintDiff() method is where the new "display the diff nicely" would go. That also can have some creativity and iteration, to see what is enough information, too much, etc. A first pass might be to look at the npm v6 find-dupes output, but we don't have to be too tied to that, if it doesn't make sense.

Then none of the commands have to change (because any dry-run reification command will just go through this method, which knows what has to be shown to the user).

Another open question, should find-dupes have the same dry-run output as npm install --dry-run? After all, npm find-dupes is effectively the same as npm install --prefer-dedupe --dry-run.

Once you add some code in there, you can do node . find-dupes to run the code in your local install. (Or node /path/to/npm/cli find-dupes to run it in some other test project.) You can also make link in the npm cli project to have it take over your "real" globally-installed npm instance, but of course that's more of a commitment.

I realize I'm answering your question with a bunch more questions, but hopefully it gets you headed in a productive direction ;)

[isaacs]

Once you have the code and output feeling about right, you can write tests in test/lib/utils/reify-output.js to cover all the cases. The existing tests should give you enough clue to get started by copying and modifying them.

Don't spend too much time trying to make it perfect. Getting something there and then tweaking it with feedback from the CLI team and other users is much more efficient. If it ends up taking a while, better to have something that gets us most of the way there, than have it be blocked. Feel free to send a draft PR with anything you'd like us to take a look at.

[chowkapow]

Hey @isaacs, thank you so much for the thorough explanation! This turned out to have more creative input than I thought.

I made a PR with some of my initial thoughts and questions. Let me know if this is the right direction and I will continue working.

[davbrito]

Hi. It seems that this has been around for a while.
What's the current status of this?

[rscottlundgren]

@isaacs - I see that you've done some work on this issue with @chowkapow, but that work was done back on Mar 20, 2021 (most recent comment between the two of you here). Is this issue still relevant/"up-for-grabs"? If so, I'd like to take a whack at it - assuming that it wasn't resolved already by the PR @chowkapow referenced previously. Please let me know.

[Pulkit0729]

Is this still an open issue?