[streptomycin]

If they were for some reason doing `npm install` rather than `npm ci`, then `npm install` does update packages in the lock file. Personally I always found that confusing, and yarn/pnpm don't behave that way. I think most people do `npm ci` in CI, unless they are using CI to specifically test if `npm install` still works, which I guess maybe would be a good idea if you use npm since it doesn't like obeying the lock file.

[Rockslide]

How does this get repeated over and over, when it's simply not true? At least not anymore. npm install will only update the lockfile if you make changes to your package.json. Otherwise, it will install the versions from the lockfile.

[mirashii]

> How does this get repeated over and over, when it's simply not true?

Well, for one, the behavior is somewhat insane.

`npm install` with no additional arguments does update the lockfile if your package.json and your lockfile are out of sync with one another for any reason, and so to get a guarantee that it doesn't change your lockfile, you must do additional configuration or guarantee by some external mechanism that you don't ever have an out of date package.json and lock. For this reason alone, the advice of "just don't use npm install, use npm ci instead" is still extremely valid, you'd really like this to fail fast if you get out of sync.

`npm install additional-package` also updates your lock file. Other package managers distinguish these two operations, with the one to add a new dependency being called "add" instead of "install".

The docs add to the confusion. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v11/commands/npm-install#save suggests that writing to package-lock.json is the default and you need to change configuration to disable it. The notion that it won't change your lock file if you're already in sync between package.json and package-lock.json is not actually spelled out clearly anywhere on the page.

> At least not anymore.

You've partially answered your own question here.

[Rockslide]

> You've partially answered your own question here.

Is that the case? If it were ever true (outside of outright bugs in npm), it must have been many many years and major npm releases ago. So that doesn't justify brigading outdated information.

[chowells]

I mean, it's my #1 experience using npm. I never once have used `npm install` and had a result other than it changing the lockfile. Maybe you want to blame this on the tools I used, but I followed the exact installation instructions of the project I was working on. If it's that common to get it "wrong", it's the tool that is wrong.

[streptomycin]

My bad, it really annoyed me when npm stopped respecting lockfiles years ago so I stopped using it. That's great news that they eventually changed their mind.

However in rare cases where I am forced to use it to contribute to some npm-using project, I have noticed that the lockfile often gets updated and I get a huge diff even though I didn't edit the dependencies. So I've always assumed that was the same issue with npm ignoring the lockfile, but maybe it's some other issue? idk

[Rockslide]

Well there are other lockfile updates as well, which aren't dependency version changes either. e.g. if the lockfile was created with an older npm version, running npm install with a newer npm version might upgrade it to a newer lockfile format and thus result in huge diffs. But that wouldn't change anything about the versions used for your dependencies.

[cluckindan]

Are you 100% on that?

[Rockslide]

Yes. As someone who's using npm install daily, and given the update cadence of npm packages, I would end up with dirty lock files very frequently if the parent statement were true. It just doesn't happen.