[release/v11] fix: prefer existing tree nodes for peerOptional deps (#9249)#9301
Merged
owlstronaut merged 1 commit intorelease/v11from May 4, 2026
Merged
[release/v11] fix: prefer existing tree nodes for peerOptional deps (#9249)#9301owlstronaut merged 1 commit intorelease/v11from
owlstronaut merged 1 commit intorelease/v11from
Conversation
When a peerOptional edge conflicts, search descendants for a satisfying node before fetching from the registry. This prevents extraneous packages from blocking hoisting of required deps. This fixes 1/2 or 1/3 of #9249. Before this change a clean install would resolve `nm/jest-util@30` when resolving the conflict at nm/jest-util between ts-jest's jest-util@^29||^30, and expect's ^28, which had been placed at root. `#nodeFromEdge` would create a brand new node, matching greatest ^30. A subequent install would mark nm/jest-util@30 as extraneous and prune it. This tree is valid, but ts-jest's peerOptional jest-util is unsatisfied, while compatible jest-util are installed and duplicated. This change reduces duplication and can prevent peerOptionals from actively installing. 1. Now during initial installs npm will prefer hoisting a dependency to de-dupe a peerOptional conflict over creating a new extraneous edge. 2. It doesn't solve the problem if there's no compatible version in the sub-tree. npm will still use `#nodeFromEdge` and install an extraneous edge. 3. It doesn't fix installs from lockfiles generated before this fix. I think this is okay, because the trees are techincally valid, just not optimal. I think a better solution to all three issues would be: * During problemEdge conflict resolution, npm would hoist nm/jest-util@28 under expect, without replacing it with anything. ts-jest's peerOptional jest-util would be unsatisfied. This creates the same tree as npm's second installs that prune extraneous. * Check for any dependencies that can be hosited. This can run during the initial install on problemEdge conflict resoultion, and in pruneIdealTree on any nodes that are removed. I think this solves all three issues. I didn't implement it because I couldn't find a way to resolve the conflict by leaving a hole in the tree.. (cherry picked from commit 0629fbf)
dhei
approved these changes
May 4, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Manual backport of #9283 to
release/v11.Cherry-picked commit: 0629fbf
Refs #9249.