Should we keep having a single package.json for the Aragon app + the web app?

[bpierre]

Pros:

• Simpler to manage: a single package.json means a single version, name, and package-lock.json to maintain.

Cons:

• The dependencies of the two apps are mixed together. https://github.com/aragon/aragon-app-dx/blob/master/package.json#L5-L15
• By default with parcel, the babel configuration has to be at the level of the package.json, making it identical for both projects.
• As the two apps grow, more configuration will likely be added to the package.json or its directory, which might cause conflicts or difficulties to understand which app is using what.

@izqui @sohkai thoughts?

[izqui]

Adding another con, all 'first-party' Aragon apps use separate packages for the contracts and the webapp. I think we should make the default developer experience as similar as possible to what we consider the best way of building Aragon apps is.

[sohkai]

I like logically separating things as much as possible, to avoid confusion. I've even been thinking about making the contracts go into a different subdirectory, so that it might look something like:

app-root
   |
   |--- frontend
           |--- src
           |--- package.json
   |--- evm
           |--- contracts
           |--- package.json

And maybe lerna at the root to make it easier to install all in one go?

[luisivan]

I wouldn't call the subdir EVM though, imagine that in the future Aragon apps run on WASM

[bpierre]

Some ideas of variable correctness: onchain, backend, ethereum-backend, ethereum-app, contracts, smart-contracts, ethereum, arapp, solidity.

I was also thinking about webapp instead of frontend (thinking about projects having several types of frontends in the future), but frontend would work fine for now.

[sohkai]

I guess I like onchain the best out of those, as the name with least confusion. Technically EWASM would still be an "EVM".

[izqui]

And maybe lerna at the root to make it easier to install all in one go?

What about repos that already use lerna to manage multiple apps like aragon/aragon-apps or TPT? Would the idea be that each app uses lerna to manage the two packages or are they all managed by the monorepo top-level lerna? Just worried than adding more packages could make dealing with app monorepos even more painful than it is right now.

[sohkai]

Yeah, don't disagree with that. I was thinking each app would also use lerna to manage the two packages... but that's probably overkill.

[bpierre]

We could also do “lerna without lerna”, only to avoid introducing another tool:

app-root
   |
   |--- package.json <= The name, version and running commands would go here. Some commands
   |                    would only be aliases of local commands in frontend/ and evm/.
   |                    `npm install` would also install the deps in frontend/ and evm/.
   |
   |
   |--- frontend
           |--- src
           |--- package.json <= private: true, local commands and deps
   |--- ethereum
           |--- contracts
           |--- package.json <= private:true, local commands and deps

[sohkai]

With the above, we should also place generic assets, e.g. icons, images, etc. into app-root/assets/, and make sure the publishing tool includes that in its list of files.

The manifest.json should go directly into app-root, and potentially the arapp.json could go into app-root/evm, since it's all contract related.