Skip to content

loader: implement package maps#62239

Open
arcanis wants to merge 3 commits intonodejs:mainfrom
arcanis:mael/package-maps
Open

loader: implement package maps#62239
arcanis wants to merge 3 commits intonodejs:mainfrom
arcanis:mael/package-maps

Conversation

@arcanis
Copy link
Contributor

@arcanis arcanis commented Mar 13, 2026

This PR adds a new --experimental-package-map=<path> flag letting Node.js resolve packages using a static JSON file instead of walking node_modules directories.

node --experimental-package-map=./package-map.json app.js

Why?

The node_modules resolution algorithm predates npm and its clear definition of the concept of packages. It works well enough and is widely supported, but has known issues:

  • Phantom dependencies - packages can accidentally import things they don't declare, because hoisting makes transitive dependencies visible

  • Peer dependency resolution is broken in monorepos - if website-v1 uses react@18 and website-v2 uses react@19, and both use a shared component-lib with React as a peer dep, there's no node_modules layout that resolves correctly. The shared lib always gets whichever React was hoisted.

  • Hoisting is lossy - runtimes can't tell if an import is legitimate or accidental

  • Resolution requires I/O - you have to hit the filesystem to resolve packages

Package managers have tried workarounds (pnpm symlinks, Yarn PnP), but are either limited by what the filesystem itself can offer (like symlinks) or by their complexity and lack of standardization (like Yarn PnP). This PR offers a mechanism for such tools to solve the problems listed above in tandem with Node.js.

How it works

A package-map.json declares packages, their locations (relative to the package map), and what each can import:

{
  "packages": {
    "my-app": {
      "name": "my-app",
      "path": "./src",
      "dependencies": ["lodash", "react"]
    },
    "lodash": {
      "name": "lodash",
      "path": "./node_modules/lodash"
    },
    "react": {
      "name": "react",
      "path": "./node_modules/react"
    }
  }
}

When resolving a bare specifier:

  1. Find which package contains the importing file (by checking paths)
  2. Look up the specifier in that package's dependencies
  3. If found, resolve to the target's path
  4. If not found but exists elsewhere in the map → ERR_PACKAGE_MAP_ACCESS_DENIED
  5. If not in the map at all → MODULE_NOT_FOUND

Compatibility

An important aspect of the package maps feature that separates it from competing options like Yarn PnP is its builtin compatibility with node_modules installs. Package managers can generate both node_modules folders AND package-map.json files, with the later referencing paths from the former.

Tools that know how to leverage package-map.json can then use this pattern for both static package resolution and strict dependency checks (with optional fallbacks to hoisting if they just wish to use the package map information to emit warnings rather than strict errors), whereas tools that don't will fallback to the classical node_modules resolution.

Differences with import maps

Issue #49443 requested to implement import maps. In practice these aren't a good fit for runtimes like Node.js for reasons described here and which can be summarized as: import maps take full ownership of the resolution pipeline by spec, thus preventing implementing additional runtime-specific behaviours such as exports or imports fields.

This PR comes as close from implementing import maps as possible but with a very light difference in design making it possible to stay compatible with other Node.js resolution features.

Why not a loader?

The ecosystem now has to deal with a variety of third-party resolvers, most of them not implementing the loader API for many different reasons: too complex, turing-complete, or dependent on a JS runtime.

After I've been following this path for more than six years I can confidently say that loaders would work for Node.js itself but wouldn't be standard enough to be included in at least some of those popular third-party tools.

Questions

  • The current implementation makes package maps strict: if they find an issue, they throw and refuse the resolution. Should we instead delegate to the default resolution unless an additional --experimental-strict-package-maps is set? Or via a strict field in package-map.json.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/config
  • @nodejs/loaders

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. labels Mar 13, 2026
@zkochan
Copy link

zkochan commented Mar 13, 2026

I like the idea, it would greatly reduce the amount of filesystem operations that pnpm has to do in order to create an isolated node_modules layout using symlinks.

I also suggested arcanis to possibly go one layer deeper and allow to map the individual files of packages. This would allow to map node_modules directly from a content-addressable store (that consists of package files). Of course, that would increase the size of the file several times but it would also make installation even faster.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 99.28910% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.69%. Comparing base (66a687f) to head (19b9e1b).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lib/internal/modules/cjs/loader.js 95.58% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #62239      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.66%   89.69%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         676      677       +1     
  Lines      206462   206873     +411     
  Branches    39533    39602      +69     
==========================================
+ Hits       185128   185550     +422     
+ Misses      13461    13456       -5     
+ Partials     7873     7867       -6     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/internal/errors.js 97.63% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
lib/internal/modules/esm/resolve.js 98.96% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
lib/internal/modules/package_map.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/node_options.cc 76.37% <100.00%> (-0.08%) ⬇️
src/node_options.h 97.93% <ø> (ø)
lib/internal/modules/cjs/loader.js 98.24% <95.58%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

... and 32 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants