Should e18e recommendations factor in supported Node version?

[johnnyreilly]

I really like the e18e recommendations that npmx provides. However when I was looking at the chalk replacement recommendation for https://npmx.dev/package/azdo-npm-auth

I realised that to follow the recommendation I'd need to increment the minimum supported Node version for my package from 18 to 22. For this particular package I don't want make a breaking changes release as I have Node 20 users (and may for a while)

This got me to thinking; should the engines.node influence e18e recommendations that are displayed? Or is it useful to have the info regardless? (Both views are potentially valid I think)

Worth saying: I'm not sure how much information e18e surfaces around minimum versions for replacements, so even if customising display is desirable, it may not be feasible

[43081j]

FYI this is an issue for the module-replacements project more than npmx:

https://github.com/es-tooling/module-replacements/

In the new data set (V3), we populate the engines for each replacement where possible. So we can surface that in npmx once we publish it

On a side note, picocolors is recommended to replace chalk if you don't have styleText built in. Does that still not satisfy below node 18?

[johnnyreilly]

In the new data set (V3), we populate the engines for each replacement where possible. So we can surface that in npmx once we publish it

Oh nice!

On a side note, picocolors is recommended to replace chalk if you don't have styleText built in. Does that still not satisfy below node 18?

Yes that would work and I may move to it

[43081j]

ill keep this issue open as we still have work to do in npmx once v3 of the data has been published 👍

in your example, it should work this way:

• if you target a minimum node version that has styleText, suggest that
• otherwise, suggest picocolors

and in both cases, link to the doc that explains both