...
It turns out that putting everything in a separate repositories has too many disadvantages e.g.:
- Key management
- UserrightsUser rights
- Doing updates (e.g. library updates need to be done over multiple )
- ES lint rules
The initial idea was that this will help the maintenance of the software. It turns out that a maintainer has a group of repository in practice.
...
For OSCD-Components, we should make use of the Package-based Repo.
Each component has it's own `package.json` File and can be individually developed, tested, compiled and published.
Motivations to run with a monorepository instead of seperate repositories
- One code owner to rule them all
- One storybook for easy checking/testing components
- 1 NPM token
- Easy copying
- Lower workload on the developers
- 1 ESlint
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
A good approach for monorepos is [`Lerna`](https://lerna.js.org/), in combination with [`Nx`](https://nx.dev). Other possible tools are [`TurboRepo`](https://turbo.build/) and [`Rush`](https://rushjs.io/). |
Factors to consider to group components in the same repository:
- Shared functionality
- Synergy
- Maintainability
- Activity
It's good to know that a monorepo monorepository is not the same as a monolith.
...
* Integrated Repos
* Package-based Repos
* Standalone Apps
Codeowners can be used to separate the owners of different components.
Core plugins can be grouped together in multiple monorepos
...
- A monorepo has less authorization rules.
- If you can access one package in the monorepo, you can access them all
- Git history will become more cluttered in a monorepo
- Maintainership Maintainer ship on a single package in a monorepo can become more of a hassle
- 1 maintainers for all compontents (mitigation: can be splitup in multiple mono repositories to make it manageble)
- Risk of overlapping (migitation: can be enforced by Lerna)