Any reason to install when using pnpm?

[IanVS]

The getting started guide says to use pnpm add --save-dev --save-exact @biomejs/biome, which will install the project in node_modules, but then all of the instructions for running biome use pnpm dlx, which will download and execute the latest version each time it is run, which defeats the purpose of saving an exact version in node_modules. Instead, a version should be specified like pnpm dlx @biomejs/[email protected] check ..

Side note: why is dlx required to run biome?

[jasikpark]

The answer is pnpm exec biome [...args] or just biome when in a scripts

https://discord.com/channels/1132231889290285117/1132602515616174080/1215058401415925900

[hilja]

npx is two commands rolled into one, which can be confusing if you only want to run the other. I guess the pnpm philosophy is to have less side-effects and it splits it to pnpm dlx and pnpm exec.

After pnpm add -D biome, you can just do pnpm biome, the exec is implied. I've gotten used to running most clis like that.

Tangent: in the v9 they will finally set enable-pre-post-scripts to true by default, I guess it's good to allow some side-effects :)

[ematipico]

I think the majority of the users don't know the distinction between package name and binary name, plus we are in an awkward position because in 99% of the cases, the package name matches with the name of the binary, which isn't our case.

Plus, bunx works as npx.

I see two options:

• get rid of the installation step
• expand the pnpm/yarn commands to show alternatives: pnpm biome/pnpm exec and ditch the dlx

[arendjr]

I vote for option 2. That way we just document those tools the way they are supposed to be used. Using dlx just doesn’t make a lot of sense here since it doesn’t behave according to the workflow we advise for the other tools. Happy to make the PR for this.

[ematipico]

Thank you!

[arendjr]

#2101

[arendjr]

The documentation was updated in #2101.