Modify CI workflow for dependency installation

[mubking]

Updated CI workflow to use 'npm install' instead of 'npm ci' for both frontend and backend. Removed caching steps and added a newline at the end of the file.

Description

Type of Change

• 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• 📚 Documentation update
• 🔧 Refactoring (no functional changes)
• ⚡ Performance improvement
• 🧪 Test addition or update

Related Issues

Closes #

Changes Made

Testing

Test Coverage

• Unit tests added/updated
• Integration tests added/updated
• Manual testing performed

Test Steps

Breaking Changes

Breaking Changes:

Migration Guide:

Screenshots/Demo

Checklist

• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published
• I have checked for breaking changes and documented them if applicable

Additional Notes

[ogazboiz]

hey @mubking, thanks for looking into the CI issues!

the original error happened because the runner couldn't find the package-lock.json files at the specified paths. changing npm ci to npm install and removing caching isn't the ideal fix, as npm ci ensures a clean, deterministic build and caching heavily speeds up our pipelines.

could you revert the npm install change and instead ensure the cache-dependency-path correctly points to where our lockfiles actually live (either in frontend/package-lock.json or the root package-lock.json depending on your setup)?

let me know if you need help with it! if you want to contribute more or follow up if issues are open, join us on Telegram: https://t.me/+DOylgFv1jyJlNzM0

[ogazboiz]

hey @mubking, just checking in on this — left some feedback about 4 weeks ago but haven't heard back.

quick reminder: this PR (and #212, #213, #215) all try to fix the same CI issue. rather than multiple PRs with the wrong fix (pointing cache-dependency-path at package.json), the right approach is:

1. ensure frontend/package-lock.json and backend/package-lock.json exist in the repo
2. keep cache-dependency-path pointing at the lock files (as it was originally)

let us know if you need help, or feel free to close these and open a fresh PR once you have the right fix. and join us on Telegram anytime: https://t.me/+DOylgFv1jyJlNzM0