In my time as an engineer I've had lots of conversations about software dependencies. I've been meaning to put my thoughts in writing for a while now—specifically about how I feel most teams, and in fact the industry at large, don't put enough thought into how they manage dependencies—but it's such a big topic that I've never found the energy to sit down and capture all of my opinions in writing, as doing so would likely take up an entire book.
With that in mind, I gave myself 60 minutes to just write down everything I could, and I used that as a first draft1. I've since made some revisions, but what follows is still a bit rough. It's best to think of it as more a stream of consciousness than a buttoned-up treatise.
The biggest problem
Probably the biggest oversight that I see being made time and time again is that developers don't appreciate the huge role that trust plays in their dependency strategy. We assume that the ecosystems we depend on are full of good, competent actors who are consistently making their software better. This is sort of the premise of semantic versioning, commonly known as semver, which is intended as a decision framework by which authors can clearly indicate how their software is changing between versions and consumers can make informed decisions about how their dependencies are changing.
Which brings me to the "competent actors" assumption. Or maybe I should call it the assumption of perfectly competent, tireless actors. Even if everyone who contributes to an ecosystem is basically competent and hard-working, they make mistakes, and they burn out. (Not to mention that we all have limited time on this earth, and not everyone wants to spend every waking moment of their lives maintaining the dependency tree of a library they're most likely giving away for free.) I don't think I've ever seen an application of semantic versioning that didn't ultimately boil down to a human making a call, e.g. Is this a major or minor version bump? and Should I keep supporting this older version? And humans tend to not always make the right call.
The party analogy
I think of it like this. Suppose you're throwing a party. You invite a bunch of friends, all of whom you personally trust. Then one of your friends asks if he can invite some of his friends. That seems fairly harmless, so you say okay. Then his friends invite their friends, and those people invite their friends; and at some point you start to feel uncomfortable because you realize there are people at this party whom you don't know or trust at all. They're friends of friends of friends. And much like when you make a copy of a copy (at least back in the days of analog!), fidelity is lost at each link in the chain.
To state this more quantitatively: our trust level naturally diminishes with each degree of separation. Let's call the rate at which it declines the trust drop-off rate, and imagine the rate for an average person is, say, 10%. That means if you trust your close friends 100%, maybe you trust their friends 90%, and their friends 81%, and their friends 73%. Eventually, if your policy is "Anyone can invite anyone", then you're likely to end up having people at the party you don't trust very much.
With libraries, what often happens is that software teams will apply some fuzzy trust criteria to their direct dependencies—for example, when looking for a library that does X, you'll identify some options and check each one to see how many stars on GitHub it has, or how many downloads on npm or RubyGems, or how many associated questions on StackOverflow—but we won't apply those same criteria to indirect dependencies. We act as though the trust drop-off rate is 0%.
In defense of
In one of the many repositories we maintain, the Bitbucket team uses
--no-deps to install Python dependencies. This is an option that prevents pip
(the de facto package manager for the Python ecosystem) from installing a
library's stated dependencies when installing the library. Other package
managers have similar options (though npm, notably, does not).
This is often met with skepticism from new devs on the team. Installing
--no-deps is seen by many as a pretty radical thing to do.
Personally I think that's because relying on package managers for dependency
resolution is a golden calf in the software world, but I digress. My position
is that using
--no-deps is, especially for a production application with real
users, the most sensible policy. It's certainly the most conservative, at
--no-deps is like saying, "The only people allowed at this party are
people I personally invite." Guests are not allowed to invite their friends
without your involvement; they can tell you which friends they'd like to
invite, and you'll add them to the guest list if you choose to.
I believe that most objections to using
--no-deps and its ilk, i.e. to take
matters into one's own hands when it comes to managing dependencies, fall into
one of two buckets:
- Correctness: Our software is going to be broken if we do this, because we're going to install incompatible dependencies, which will cause errors or bugs.
- Maintenance: We're taking on too great a burden by hand-managing all of our dependencies like this; we should just use a lock file and let our package manager do the work for us.
The problem with the correctness argument
The argument that
--no-deps leads to incompatible dependencies leans heavily
on the assumption I mentioned earlier of perfectly competent, tireless library
The default system for resolving dependencies is that library authors specify what works and what doesn't. This is equivalent to vouching for one another. Time for another analogy!
Imagine you're hiring a contractor to do a job, and we had this system: every contractor has a "compatibility card", and on each card there's a list of the other contractors they need to accomplish their part of the job, or else they can't do it. Your package manager is like an assistant who checks every contractor's card and ensures that all the right people are all hired for the job.
Note that the list of names on every person's card is hand-written; i.e., they get to write whatever they want on there. In theory, these lists define who is necessary to do the job; in reality, you might not need all those people. One person's list might tell you, "I can't do this work without Tony"; but then you bring them in without hiring Tony, and what do you know? They still get the job done.
Similarly, a library might say, "I can't work without version 3 of this other library"; but maybe that's only true for a small set of functionality you aren't using. Or maybe it isn't true at all; maybe the library works just fine with version 2, but the author removed test coverage for version 2 from their test suite to ease their maintenance load, or to silence some deprecation warnings from their build. Or maybe it used to use that other library, and it doesn't anymore, and the author just never removed the stated dependency.
When you always install all stated dependencies of all your direct dependencies, you are saying, "I trust that everyone I hired for this job has an accurate list on their card; and all of those people have accurate lists on their ID cards; and..."
I feel like the best way to tell if your software has bugs is to test your software. If you've installed incompatible versions of dependencies, and this causes bugs or raises errors, that's something you should catch in your testing.
The problem with the maintenance argument
I can almost hear you, reader, asking, "So what are we supposed to do? Manually hand-edit our requirements file whenever we want to upgrade a dependency, to make sure we have all the right versions of any upstream requirements?"
I know that sounds absurd, but why? I'll tell you why: because we've become desensitized to massive changes to our dependency trees, as just a normal thing that happens. It's so normal that we don't even look at the contents of lock files anymore (if any of us ever did in the first place). In fact, many teams actively exclude lock files from diffs when reviewing code because we don't think it's reasonable to expect a human to review them.
Here's the problem lock files (like package-lock.json, yarn.lock, Gemfile.lock,
or Pipfile.lock) are meant to solve. Say you just have a file that specifies
all of your direct dependencies, and you rely on a package manager to identify
your indirect dependencies; i.e. you aren't using
--no-deps. If your
deployments involve a step to install these dependencies, e.g.
npm install or
pip install -r requirements.txt, you may end up unwittingly installing new
versions of upstream dependencies from one deployment to the next. A lock file
ensures you're always installing exactly the same version of every direct and
indirect (upstream) dependency.
In other words a lock file provides deterministic builds. It is not a
conservative approach to managing dependencies in the same way that
is. The problem with trust remains. In fact, when a team uses package-lock.json
and never reviews changes to that file because they're often far too numerous
to review... those are exactly the conditions that would allow a malicious
upstream package to slip through, just like the event-stream disaster.
Using a lock file together with a package manager does not simply automate a mundane task and reduce maintenance cost. It trades maintenance for control. What's more, by automating that task and thereby largely removing human decision-making from the process, it desensitizes teams to the sizes of their dependency trees. This is similar to the economic phenomenon where, if you subsidize an industry with no corresponding mechanism to control costs, costs will simply rise to consume available subsidies2.
As a side note, this is why in Bitbucket we have not defaulted to excluding this file, or other lock files, from pull request diffs. If teams want that behavior, they must explicitly enable it.
I honestly can't think of an elegant way to wrap this up, so I'll just say: I know that I'm in the minority on this one. And I don't dispute the value that automated dependency management solutions have provided to the software world. If this post seems a little one-sided, it's because sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who has these concerns (though surely that isn't true); so I've leaned in pretty hard on the risks and downsides of using these tools while perhaps downplaying the benefits. (If you want to read about why package managers are a good thing, there is no shortage of literature out there for you to find.)
There are benefits to package managers, no question. I'm not saying that
software teams are foolish or irresponsible for using them. I'm not even saying
you should use
--no-deps (or equivalent) all the time. In many cases, I
understand that would be impractical. That said, I believe too many devs
haven't really put much thought into this; and so if anything I suppose my goal
in writing this was to get you to do just that: put some thought into it, and
at least know your reasons for managing your dependencies the way you are
(hopefully they're better than "that's just how it's done").