README development instructions don't work out of the box

[mfisher87]

Description

To run jlpm, you need to install jupyterlab. When instantiating the template from the latest release, it's not included as a dependency or documented as needed for development.

In the unreleased version, it is listed as an optional dependency (aka extra), but I think it and the testing dependencies should be moved to dependency groups before we do a release.

And we should update the pip install command to install the dev and test groups (pip install --group dev --group test --editable .).

Reproduce

1. Instantiate a "frontend" extension with copier -- don't specify any version and you'll get the latest release, not the main branch.
2. Follow the development instructions in README
3. When running jlpm build: Command not found
4. See error '...'

Expected behavior

Instructions can be followed successfully

Context

• Operating System and version:
• Browser and version:
• JupyterLab version:

Troubleshoot Output

Paste the output from running `jupyter troubleshoot` from the command line here.
You may want to sanitize the paths in the output.

Command Line Output

Paste the output from your command line running `jupyter lab` here, use `--debug` if possible.

Browser Output

Paste the output from your browser Javascript console here, if applicable.

[krassowski]

Well, JupyterLab should not be needed to build extensions. PR #133 makes a first step in this direction. Maybe we should just replace the jlpm with yarn (or npm or pnpm). For ease of setup npm wins as most of the time it comes preinstalled with Node.js.

[mfisher87]

Well, JupyterLab should not be needed to build extensions. PR #133 makes a first step in this direction

Nice, Jason had told me about jupyter-builder and I didn't realize it was ready :D

Maybe we should just replace the jlpm with yarn (or npm or pnpm)

💯 💯 💯

I would personally push hard for pnpm.

While I agree on ease of setup, npm is the least secure of these three options. pnpm is the most secure out of the box (yarn has postinstall scripts enabled by default).

I think the purpose of the template should be to give the users the benefits of technical expertise they might not have themselves, and I think that aligns with what I see in the template's current state. This is less of a quick-start approach, and more of a "batteries you didn't know you needed are included" approach. And I hope if we tell users "you should be using pnpm," they'll trust it and just do the extra steps.

What do you think?

[krassowski]

Well, I forgot that jupyter-builder solves that problem for now too - it ships jlpm: https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyter-builder/blob/main/jupyter_builder/jlpm.py

I think pnpm is great, but we are not ready to adopt it more widely just yet: jupyterlab/maintainer-tools#273

I think I would love to give extension author a choice in this template. I would probably suggest keeping jlpm as default for compatibility reasons (when upgrading the template).

[mfisher87]

Thanks for the extra context, that's good to know!

I like the idea of giving the user a choice in general. I may be more concerned than average about this, but I wonder if the severity of the situation may merit us forcing users to switch to npm pnpm when the upgrade the template. It's an "eat your vegetables" kind of thing, but with an undeniably worthwhile cost:benefit ratio. IMO :)

[krassowski]

Well, users don't like their veggies. Though the thing about having jlpm alias is that we could point it to pnpm without breaking workflows that much (beyond the need to swap the lock file format).

[mfisher87]

Well, users don't like their veggies

Too true! 😆 And especially don't like being forced to eat them. But I do think there's a place for it, very rarely.

Well, users don't like their veggies. Though the thing about having jlpm alias is that we could point it to pnpm without breaking workflows that much (beyond the need to swap the lock file format).

Interesting idea. And we can tell them how to solve the problem when pnpm isn't installed instead of just giving them "pnpm: Command not found".