🚀 Feature: Don't require version if package has "private": true

[altano]

Bug Report Checklist

• I have tried restarting my IDE and the issue persists.
• I have pulled the latest main branch of the repository.
• I have searched for related issues and found none that matched my issue.

Overview

I have disabled the package-json/valid-version rule because it warns on private packages. Tools like changeset require that you remove the private package version number (instead of, say providing a useless one like 0.0.1) or it will try to manage that version, even if the package is private. Ideally this package would just allow no versions on private packages.

Thank you for making this package btw. It's great!

Additional Info

No response

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Oh, that's good to know - thank you for reporting!

Right now, the rule's implementation is set to only complain if there is a "version" property. It doesn't complain if the property doesn't exist:

eslint-plugin-package-json/src/tests/rules/valid-version.test.ts

Lines 45 to 46 in 2ce1881

	valid: [
	"{}",

What situation are you seeing where there's an erroneous complaint?

[altano]

Sorry, I misspoke: it's the valid-package-def rule that is erroring when a package has a private specifier and no version:

/Volumes/sourcecode/npm-packages/packages/eslint-config-altano/package.json
  1:1  error  Missing required field: version  package-json/valid-package-def

This test case in valid-package-def.test.ts would reveal it:

		{
			code: `{
  "name": "panda",
  "private": true
}`,
			filename: "package.json",
		},

I can submit a PR if you'd like. I would create an exception for this error and only pass the Missing required field: version error through if private: true is not in the package? (I don't see a way of configuring package validator to use that logic itself). Would I somehow traverse the ast to determine it has a name, or ?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

I don't see a way of configuring package validator to use that logic itself

Ahh, good news, I'm also working on https://github.com/TechNickAI/package.json-validator. So this would be a good issue to file there! Could I trouble you to do that please?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Ha, just hit this in my own work.

Clarifying my request for the issue: I like giving authors of issues & PRs proper attribution, and having them file things means they get credit more prominently. But I don't want to add more work to your plate on this clear bug in libraries that's inconveniencing you already. I've set myself a reminder to do everything on Monday if nothing's filed by then.

[altano]

Filed: JoshuaKGoldberg/package.json-validator#84

Clarifying my request for the issue ...

I get it, you're fostering the spirit of open source, not being lazy.

But I don't want to add more work to your plate on this clear bug in libraries that's inconveniencing you already.

Nah, I'm just fucking around. You couldn't inconvenience me if you tried. I curate a little zen garden of npm packages that absolutely no one users over at https://github.com/altano/npm-packages and I'm adding package.json validation to it for absolutely no reason. So it's all good.

[github-actions]

🎉 This is included in version v0.15.1 🎉

The release is available on:

• GitHub releases
• npm package (@latest dist-tag)

Cheers! 📦🚀