I maintain over 200 repositories on GitHub and one of the most common PRs that I receive is someone adding
yarn.lock. These PRs are closed without merging because dependency lock files are not designed to be used by packages that are themselves dependencies of other packages.
Official NPM documentation encourages to commit
package-lock.json files to the source code version control:
It is highly recommended you commit the generated package lock to source control: this will allow anyone else on your team, your deployments, your CI/continuous integration, and anyone else who runs npm install in your package source to get the exact same dependency tree that you were developing on. Additionally, the diffs from these changes are human-readable and will inform you of any changes npm has made to your node_modules, so you can notice if any transitive dependencies were updated, hoisted, etc.
package-lock.json to the source code version control means that the project maintainers and CI systems will use a specific version of dependencies that may or may not match those defined in
package-lock.json cannot be added to NPM registry (by design; see NPM shrinkwrap), projects that depend on a project that uses
package-lock.json will themselves use
package.json to resolve project's dependencies, i.e. what works for project maintainers/ CI systems might not work when the project is used as a dependency.
The origin of this misuse is NPM documentation. It should instead explain that
package-lock.json should only be committed to the source code version control when the project is not a dependency of other projects, i.e.
package-lock.json should only by committed to source code version control for top-level projects (programs consumed by the end user, not other programs).
I have already asked NPM to update the documentation, but it was archived without an action.
Some comments suggested that the biggest advantage of
package-lock.json is that it allows to replicate the development environment.
I would support a variation of
package-lock.json if it could somehow only apply to
devDependencies. I can see some (albeit small and with tradeoffs) benefit to wanting your development environment not break if there is a broken release among your dependencies. I would personally prefer my environment to break and become aware that a dependency in my toolkit requires attention (and depending on the nature of the issue either offer help, subscribe to an issue or replace the dependency). After all, you can easily patch your dependency tree if you need to lock down a specific version for development purposes.
However, there is no such option and using lock files at the moment will create the risks described in this article – namely that the dependencies that you use do not match those that your users will depend on. Responsible development requires that your script works with the latest versions of dependencies satisfied by semver (and yes that includes transitive dependencies).