Changes lgtm but I'm not a user and have no way of testing this.

Thanks for the approval. I guess @Ma27 is the only user really running this, so he is the only user that can actually approve this.

@doronbehar would you mind going to https://github.com/Ylianst/MeshCentral/releases/tag/1.1.57 which makes having our own package-lock.json obsolete?

@doronbehar would you mind going to Ylianst/MeshCentral@1.1.57 (release) which makes having our own package-lock.json obsolete?

Sure, done. Thanks for notifying about this.

Also fixed merge conflicts with 9e77da8 .

OK This was a bit tricky, as nodejs_22 had to be used, I created:

• Write optionalDependencies explicitly in package{,-lock}.json Ylianst/MeshCentral#7672

So let's see how they will reply. In the meantime I manually include it in the build. @Ma27 could you please verify it works for you now?

@Ma27 it was harder then I thought to persuade upstream to track these optional dependencies in their package-lock.json:

• Write optionalDependencies explicitly in package{,-lock}.json Ylianst/MeshCentral#7672

However I'm still a bit optimistic, and currently I have to wait for them to discuss it with the community. Hence I marked this PR as a draft.

Still though, the PR in it's current state is functional, and I'd really like to get the acknowledgment that it works for you and doesn't try to install optional dependencies during runtime. So one more test would be great, please 🙏.

This is looking pretty good now, thanks for putting the effort into this!

This is looking pretty good now, thanks for putting the effort into this!

Thanks for taking a look, but have you tested that it works?

Thanks for taking a look, but have you tested that it works?

Sorry for not being explicit, yes I have tested that it behaves correctly, as deployed this to an instance and ensured that connections to other machiens work.

@doronbehar any reason this is still a draft?

@doronbehar any reason this is still a draft?

Meshcentral developers and users had a meeting online on Thursday (see this list of meetings). I joined this meeting and expressed our concerns regarding them tracking the optional dependencies in the package-lock.json file. They were sort of convinced this is the correct thing to do, but there are still some open questions they are not sure about. Hence I'm not expecting anytime soon that they will start tracking the optional dependencies in package-lock.json, but I'm optimistic.

Hence I guess we can merge it pretty much as is (I edited the comment near the optional dependencies patch, and rebased upon latest master).