(#5545) - remove lerna

[nolanlawson]

It turns out there were only a few changes needed to remove lerna bootstrap entirely:

• move packages to packages/node_modules
• fix .gitignore so that it only ignores the top-level node_modules
• add all dependencies from sub-packages to the top-level package

This change only removes Lerna. There are still some remaining TODOs that can be tackled in a future PR, such as not duplicating dependencies between sub-packages and the main package, but for now this is the simplest PR.

[nolanlawson]

Oh I should also mention that this fully re-enables GreenKeeper, although we will still need to manually update versions in the sub-packages for changed dependencies (not dev dependencies) until I can fix the TODO described above.

[nolanlawson]

devDependencies are no longer needed inside of the sub-packages, since everything is handled either at the top-level node_modules or in packages/node_modules. These devDependencies previously only existed so that lerna bootstrap would work correctly.

[nolanlawson]

Looks like this shaves about 30 seconds off of each build. :)

[nolanlawson]

Well unfortunately this broke the 0.10 build because of my too-clever-by-half "build in Node 6, test in Node 0.10" thing. Looks like Rollup expects Map to be there and barfs if it's not.

[nolanlawson]

Hm, this is a very hard problem to solve. I can't think of a way to extract just the test suite (which doesn't require Rollup), and then install it and run it in Node 0.10. Maybe it would be easier just to open a PR on Rollup to support 0.10.

[nolanlawson]

Uggg, I could solve this by just dumping all the devDeps into dependencies, because then npm install --production wouldn't run npm run build, but it's kinda ugly to slam them all together like that. We could also disable the prepublish so that it doesn't run after npm install. Not sure what to do here.

[daleharvey]

'0.10' becomes entirely unsupported in 50 days, I think its fine for us to drop support

[nolanlawson]

Big 👍 to that.

[nolanlawson]

OK, removed 0.10 entirely and moved back to the old system of using the same Node for building and testing.

[nolanlawson]

lol wow eslint doesn't work in either 0.11 or 0.12 because it uses let. this is ridiculous

[nolanlawson]

I propose we move linting to a separate build entirely. There's no reason to run it for each and every build anyway.

[nolanlawson]

Oh for crying out loud, forgot that eslint runs after each test. Let's just add 0.11 and 0.12 to allowed failures for now.

[nolanlawson]

Now that Firefox is fixed, trying again...

[nolanlawson]

0.11 and 0.12 are failing in all tests because we run eslint. I decided to drop all of 0.10, 0.11, and 0.12 entirely. There's no easy way I can see to support 0.10-0.12 if eslint has decided their minimum baseline is 4.

Maybe in the future we can figure out how to write a patch to do the "build in one version, test in another" thing again, but right now it's just getting too difficult to support anything less than 4.

OTOH I added a test for Node 4 itself, so we're currently testing in 4, 5, and stable, with an allowed failure on stable.

[daleharvey]

So I am 👍 on that, these node versions are going entirely unsupported (no security upgrades) very shortly so if its blocking improvements then happy to drop support.

Would like to ping @yaronyg though, if you absolutely need 0.X then would like to give you the chance to do the extra work to get it working here, or at least notice to fork, hopefully you can use >=4 by now though

[nolanlawson]

All tests are passing except code coverage. I will look into it.

No coverage information was collected, exit without writing coverage information
ERROR: No coverage files found.

[nolanlawson]

OK, had to fix Istanbul to not-ignore packages/node_modules. Now hopefully this should all be good and I can move on to the other stuff that's blocking 6.0.0. 😛

[daleharvey]

Tiny nit, could we move this to the top of the matrix: section, I was confused that allowed_failures had this section inside of it

[nolanlawson]

Will do

[daleharvey]

Had one tiny comment on the travis.yml but otherwise this is great, faster + lesss complicated builds is awesome.

One other tiny question, so if we want to use a package in a submodule, we need to add it to both package.json and that submodule? if so it seems a note in the docs somewhere would be useful.

Would still like to hear from Yaron just in case, but 👍 maybe wait till monday before merging?

[daleharvey]

lol ok just read #5583 so can ignore the question :)

[nolanlawson]

Made the .travis.yml change on the way in, see 9b51141

[yaronyg]

@daleharvey Unfortunately we can't move to Node 4. The reason is that we are running on JXcore which is the only version of node that currently runs on mobile phones and it is based on a hybrid of Node 0.10 and 0.12. We are updating it to do things like support the latest security patches for OpenSSL. But until we figure out some way to get mainline Node working on Android and iOS we have no option but to stick with JXcore. We are looking to put in resources that could monitor PouchDB failures on Node 0.10/0.12 and submit fixes.