Julien Richard-Foy

That might be the same problem as we are hitting in #90.

Hey, the problem is that your `name` field is invalid. See the rules [here](https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package.json#name). However, a bigger problem is that although `npm install` effectively *fails* when the name is invalid,...

Besides that, the following changes will be required for your project: instead of using `jsDependencies` use `npmDependencies in Compile`, and instead of specifying the `jsEnv` to use, add the `requireJsDomEnv...

I would love to improve diagnostics, however in that specific case I’m not sure how we should proceed: npm only emits a warning (like a lot of other warnings that...

scalajs-bundler was designed just before the introduction of the `package-lock.json` file and indeed it doesn’t integrate well with it. We should probably: - introduce a new setting: `npmPackageLockDirectory: SettingKey[File]`, with...

Thanks for sharing your experiments :) Using the `webpackResources` mechanism is an interesting solution. We should just update the documentation. However, I wouldn’t use the `resourceDirectory` but rather the `baseDirectory`:...

Right, I forgot that part. So, we probably have to implement some logic for the specific case of managing the package-lock.json file.

I’m also in favor of forwarding dependency resolutions to the underlying dependencies management tool (ie, yarn, because npm does not have support for that). This means that instead of having...

See also: http://appddeevvmeanderings.blogspot.com/2017/11/you-do-not-need-scalajs-bundler-to-use.html

I believe _something_ could still be useful to provide the path of the produced .js file to the (manually written) webpack configuration file. And also, I think a version of...