Packages without README aren't identified correctly

[Freakspot]

It seems that packages without READMEs get detected as being "not present" despite obviously it just being the readme missing, not the package itself.

Is that something you could fix? :D

[zeke]

Hi sorry for the delay getting back to you. Can you cite any specific example packages that are getting left out?

[Freakspot]

Hey, try doing console.log(names.includes('dso'));. It'll return false despite dso being a package name (https://www.npmjs.com/package/dso).

Same thing happens with a package called "khi" which I just created some days ago (I have updated all-the-package-names since then!). Khi actually has a readme, but includes still returns false? Seems that my initial assumption of it being only packages that lack a readme was incorrect.

Both packages are not part of names.json; I even checked manually.

[zeke]

Investigating...

[easingthemes]

also few more:
[ 'cy', 'hx', 'lh', 'lj', 'mp', 'su', 'vg', 'wv' ]

https://www.npmjs.com/package/hx has a readme file, but lowercase, if that matters readme.md

[easingthemes]

package-stream is using nice-package which has validation for name and description as required.

https://github.com/nice-registry/package-stream/blob/master/index.js#L26
https://github.com/nice-registry/nice-package/blob/master/index.js#L55
https://github.com/nice-registry/nice-package/blob/master/lib/schema.js

Only name and version are required fields. description is not mandatory.
https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#version

So invalid packages (missing description) as per nice-package validation are not included.

[zeke]

Hey party people. Long time no see.

nice-package was updated a while back to no longer require description.

@jimaek has graciously offered to revive this package, so all the description-less packages should be in the mix soon.