Repository navigation
Package react-scripts is installed as not a dev dependency #2696
Description
Is this a bug report?
Yes
Can you also reproduce the problem with npm 4.x?
Yes
Which terms did you search for in User Guide?
(Write your answer here if relevant.)
Environment
node -v:8.0.0npm -v:5.0.3yarn --version(if you use Yarn):npm ls react-scripts(if you haven’t ejected):1.0.10create-react-app --version:1.3.3
Then, specify:
- Operating system: macOS Sierra
- Browser and version (if relevant):
Steps to Reproduce
nvm use 8
npm install --global create-react-app
create-react-app test-app
cd test-app
cat package.json
Expected Behavior
Package react-scripts should appear in devDependencies section
Actual Behavior
Package react-scripts appears next to react-dom in dependencies section.
Reproducible Demo
(Paste the link to an example project and exact instructions to reproduce the issue.)
Activity
yakhinvadim commentedon Jun 30, 2017
This is intentional and was made in v1.0.8. See #2657
Timer commentedon Jun 30, 2017
This is intentional as your application relies on polyfills provided by the package, warrantying a dependency.
As a side effect, deploying to Now and Heroku is easier.
alexeyraspopov commentedon Jun 30, 2017
@gaearon, what was the reasoning for this change? I found it pretty confusing (so I opened the ticket) since it's expected behavior after 6+ years of using NPM.
gaearon commentedon Jun 30, 2017
It fixes deployment issues on some hosting providers that assume only dependencies are needed for the build. The line is also very thin in frontend development. None of them are "runtime" dependencies because we don't have a server and they all get bundled into a single file. So if we were pedantic then we would have to declare everything as devDependencies, including React itself. I just figured that it's not worth conceptual overhead anyway since distinction is largely arbitrary. For example polyfills could be categorised as either.
alexeyraspopov commentedon Jul 4, 2017
Couldn't it be done as just a part of Deployment/Troubleshooting part in README then?
gaearon commentedon Jul 4, 2017
Sure, but we generally try for more things to work out of the box.
This is a good example of an issue that can be debated endlessly because there's very little technical arguments for and against. I've made a choice there and if you disagree, you can always move those few lines.
stevenvachon commentedon Aug 6, 2017
The polyfills should be moved out to a "react-polyfills" package, then. "scripts" does not imply polyfills.
gaearon commentedon Aug 6, 2017
What technical problem are you having?
stevenvachon commentedon Aug 6, 2017
Semantics.
gaearon commentedon Aug 6, 2017
You can move it in your
package.jsonand then there is no problem.Again, unless you’re building a Node.js app, the most correct semantics would be to put everything into
devDependenciesincludingreactand any libraries you’re using. But there are practical reasons why this is undesirable so we just went with the opposite approach.stevenvachon commentedon Aug 7, 2017
reactis adependencybecause it is included in the final build. A polyfill, such as one for something like<details>would be treated the same. Something likebabelis not, and is therefore adevDependency. I'd probably put something likebabel-polyfillindevDependencies. With that,react-scriptswould follow suit.jeremy-ww commentedon Nov 24, 2017
If you are using npm, run this command will move all packages except
ReactintodevDependencies.justinmeiners commentedon Jan 16, 2019
@gaearon I can no longer identify which licenses are used in production and which are just for build tools.