avatarAwwwesssooooome

Summary

The provided content discusses the selection and comparison of various Monorepo tools in 2024, emphasizing the importance of choosing the right tool based on project needs, team expertise, and workflow compatibility.

Abstract

In the rapidly evolving software development landscape, Monorepo architecture offers significant advantages for project management and collaboration by consolidating multiple projects into a single repository. The article provides an in-depth analysis of common Monorepo tools such as Rush, Turborepo, Lerna, Yarn Workspaces, Pnpm Workspaces, Yalc, npm Workspaces, and Nx, highlighting their unique features, benefits, and limitations. It underscores the need for efficient dependency management, scalability, and build optimization in Monorepo environments. The comparative analysis includes data on awareness, usage, interest, and satisfaction with these tools, revealing trends and shifts in developer preferences. The article concludes with a practical approach to selecting a Monorepo tool, suggesting a combination of Lerna with Yarn or Pnpm Workspaces for effective version management and package publishing, while also considering factors like team adaptability and CI/CD integration.

Opinions

  • The author suggests that Rush is suitable for large projects due to its efficient dependency management and scalability but may be complex for smaller projects.
  • Turborepo is praised for its build caching mechanism and parallel task processing, though it may lack some advanced features and incur additional costs.
  • Lerna is recognized for simplifying version management and local dependency linking but may face performance bottlenecks in large Monorepos.
  • Yarn Workspaces is seen as beneficial for its simplified dependency management and single lock file but has a learning curve and may require additional tooling for build processes.
  • Pnpm Workspaces is highlighted for its efficient storage and network utilization, as well as its native Monorepo support, but may have compatibility issues with certain dependencies.
  • npm Workspaces offers native support for Monorepo projects and simple configuration but may have performance issues and lack advanced features.
  • Yalc is appreciated for improving local workflow and avoiding issues with npm link but requires manual management and lacks automatic dependency resolution.
  • Nx is recommended for its enhanced development experience, consistency, and scalability, though it has a learning curve and configuration complexity.
  • The article emphasizes the importance of monitoring tool satisfaction and community support, suggesting that emerging tools like Turborepo and pnpm are gaining favor due to their advanced features and performance.
  • The final recommendation leans towards adopting Pnpm Workspaces for its transparent dependency relationships and fast installation speed, advising a phased implementation plan for tool transitions.

How to Choose Monorepo Tools in 2024

1. Introduction

In today’s rapidly evolving software development landscape, traditional multi-repository (Multirepo) approaches do have certain limitations in project management and collaboration as project structures become increasingly complex and diversified. As an alternative, Monorepo, which consolidates multiple projects, libraries, or services into a single version control repository, offers significant advantages.

Monorepo simplifies cross-project dependency management, reduces the likelihood of dependency conflicts, and streamlines the process of updating third-party libraries. In a Monorepo architecture, shared tool configurations for building, testing, and deployment enhance workflow consistency and reduce maintenance costs. Monorepo fosters collaboration among team members as everyone works in the same repository, facilitating code reuse and knowledge sharing. With all projects sharing the same repository, it’s easier to maintain uniformity in code style and development practices, contributing to overall project quality.

However, implementing Monorepo also presents challenges such as the need for effective code organization, support for version control systems in large repositories, and potential optimization for builds. Choosing the right tools and strategies is crucial for successful Monorepo adoption. As of 2024, widely used Monorepo tools like Yarn Workspaces, Lerna, Nx, etc., already provide robust support. The choice of which tool to use should be based on the specific needs of the team, such as project size, team members’ skill levels, and compatibility with existing workflows.

Despite the many advantages of Monorepo, it also has its challenges, such as potential performance issues due to repository size and the need for additional tools and configurations for management. Therefore, when choosing a project architecture, decisions should be made based on the specific requirements of the project and the team’s workflow. Next, we will analyze the most commonly used Monorepo tools in 2024 and make a decision on selecting the most suitable tool.

2. Common Monorepo Tools

Choosing the right Monorepo tool is crucial for effectively managing large codebases, enhancing team collaboration, and optimizing build and deployment processes.

With the continuous advancement of technology, by the year 2024, the frontend community has developed a range of mature Monorepo management tools, each with its unique advantages and potential limitations. Currently popular Monorepo tools in the frontend community include Rush, Turborepo, Lerna, Yarn Workspaces, Pnpm Workspaces, Yalc, npm Workspaces, and Nx. Below, I will briefly share the pros and cons of each popular tool:

2.1 Rush

Rush makes life easier for JavaScript developers who build and publish many NPM packages at once. If you’re looking to consolidate all your projects into a single repo, you came to the right place! Rush is a fast, professional solution for managing this scenario.

Rush is a tool for managing multi-package or Monorepo projects, aimed at providing efficient, reliable build, test, and release processes. Developed by Microsoft, it is designed specifically for large projects and teams, with support for JavaScript and TypeScript. Here are some key advantages and disadvantages of Rush:

Advantages:

  1. Efficient Dependency Management: Rush uses pnpm as a backend for dependency management, effectively utilizing hard links and symbolic links to reduce redundant dependency copies, significantly reducing disk space usage and speeding up installation.
  2. Scalability: Designed for large projects, Rush can handle hundreds or thousands of packages in a Monorepo, providing excellent scalability.
  3. Incremental Builds: Rush supports incremental builds, only rebuilding packages that have changed since the last successful build. This can significantly reduce build times and improve development efficiency.
  4. Parallel Execution: Rush can execute tasks (such as builds, tests) in parallel, intelligently sorting them based on dependencies, further optimizing build and test speeds.
  5. Flexible Versioning: Rush provides flexible version control options, supporting version locking and managing dependencies between packages.
  6. Comprehensive Tool Integration: Rush offers integration with other tools (such as ESLint, Prettier, Jest), simplifying the configuration of toolchains.

Disadvantages:

  1. Learning Curve: Rush offers many advanced features and configuration options, which may make the initial learning and setup relatively complex for new users.
  2. Complex Configuration: For small projects or simple Monorepos, Rush’s configuration may appear overly complex and redundant.
  3. Community and Ecosystem: While Rush is backed by Microsoft, its community and ecosystem may not be as large or active as some other tools (such as Lerna, Yarn).
  4. Migration Costs: For projects already using other Monorepo management tools, migrating to Rush may require some migration work.

Rush is a powerful Monorepo management tool, particularly suitable for large projects that require efficient dependency management, incremental builds, and high scalability. However, for small projects or teams inclined towards simpler tools, Rush may not be the best choice. The decision to use Rush should be based on the specific requirements, team size, and technology stack of the project.

2.2 Turborepo

Turbo is an incremental bundler and build system optimized for JavaScript and TypeScript, written in Rust.

Turborepo is a high-performance Monorepo build system designed specifically for the JavaScript and TypeScript ecosystems, providing efficient building, testing, and deployment tools. It optimizes the Monorepo workflow through intelligent caching and task execution. Here are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of Turborepo:

Advantages:

  1. Efficient build caching: The core feature of Turborepo is its build caching mechanism, which caches previous build results across projects, significantly improving the speed of repeated builds.
  2. Parallel task processing: Turborepo can execute multiple tasks (such as builds, tests) in parallel and automatically handle dependencies between tasks, optimizing overall execution efficiency.
  3. Easy configuration: Compared to some other Monorepo tools, Turborepo’s configuration is more concise and intuitive, making it relatively easy for new users to get started.
  4. Flexible task execution: Turborepo supports fine-grained control over task execution, allowing developers to specify which tasks need to be executed and their execution order flexibly.
  5. Integration and compatibility: Turborepo is designed with compatibility with existing frontend ecosystems in mind, such as Next.js, Vercel, making it an ideal choice in modern JavaScript development environments.
  6. Remote caching: In addition to local caching, Turborepo also supports remote caching, allowing team members to share build caches, further speeding up build times.

Disadvantages:

  1. Lack of certain advanced features: For projects requiring highly customized or complex dependency management, Turborepo may lack some advanced features.
  2. Ecosystem and community: While Turborepo is growing rapidly, its ecosystem and community may not be as rich as some more mature tools (such as Lerna or Yarn Workspaces).
  3. Cost: Turborepo offers some advanced features, such as remote caching, but using these features may incur additional costs.
  4. Migration for old projects: Migrating to Turborepo for projects already using other Monorepo tools may require some work, especially in adapting to new build caching and task management patterns.

Turborepo provides an efficient and user-friendly Monorepo management solution, particularly suitable for projects that prioritize build performance and development efficiency.

2.3 Lerna

The Original Tool forJavaScript Monorepos

Lerna is a popular Monorepo management tool designed specifically for managing JavaScript projects with multiple packages. It optimizes dependency management and version control processes across packages, making it particularly suitable for scenarios where multiple packages need to be released simultaneously. Here are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of Lerna:

Advantages:

  1. Simplified version management: Lerna allows developers to unify version control and release multiple packages with a single command, including packages dependent on each other, simplifying the version management and release process.
  2. Optimized local dependency linking: With the lerna bootstrap command, Lerna can automatically handle dependencies between packages by linking them with symbolic links (symlinks), making cross-package referencing very simple during development.
  3. Flexible release options: Lerna offers flexible release options, including independent mode and fixed/locked mode, allowing developers to choose the most suitable version update strategy based on the specific needs of the project.
  4. Improved development workflow: Lerna supports running scripts across multiple packages, which helps unify building, testing, and other common development tasks, thereby improving development efficiency.
  5. Community support and integration: As a tool that has been serving the Monorepo scene for a while, Lerna enjoys broad community support, and many projects and tools offer integrations with Lerna.

Disadvantages:

  1. Learning curve: Lerna has rich features and configuration options, and new users may need to spend some time learning how to use these features correctly.
  2. Build performance: For very large Monorepo projects, Lerna may encounter performance bottlenecks during the build and bootstrapping processes, especially without adequate caching strategies.
  3. Complexity of dependency management: Although Lerna simplifies dependency management between multiple packages, additional work and configuration may still be required, especially when dealing with external dependencies, version conflicts, and deduplication of duplicate dependencies.
  4. Tool compatibility: While Lerna is compatible with most build and package management tools, compatibility issues may still arise in specific scenarios, especially when used with certain specific build systems or package managers.

Lerna is a powerful Monorepo management tool, well-suited for JavaScript projects that need to manage multiple closely related packages. It brings significant benefits to Monorepo projects by simplifying version control and improving development workflow efficiency.

2.4 Yarn Workspaces

Yarn Workspaces is a workspace management feature provided by Yarn, particularly suitable for managing Monorepo projects, where multiple packages are handled within a single repository. This approach is very useful for frontend projects, library collections, or any project that relies on multiple interrelated modules. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of using Yarn Workspaces to manage Monorepo projects:

Advantages:

  1. Simplified dependency management: Yarn Workspaces enables sharing dependencies between multiple packages, requiring dependencies to be installed only once in the root directory, making them available to all workspaces. This not only reduces installation time but also saves disk space.
  2. Single lock file: The entire Monorepo uses a single yarn.lock file, ensuring dependency consistency and avoiding issues with inconsistent dependency versions between different packages.
  3. Convenient cross-package linking: Yarn automatically handles dependencies between workspaces, linking packages to each other via symbolic links, making dependency management between local development and packages effortless.
  4. Optimized build process: When used in conjunction with some Monorepo tools (such as Lerna), Yarn Workspaces can further optimize the build process, such as utilizing Lerna’s incremental publishing feature.
  5. Community support: As part of Yarn, Workspaces enjoys strong community support and stable maintenance, making it a reliable choice.

Disadvantages:

  1. Learning curve: Understanding and configuring Yarn Workspaces may require a learning curve for beginners, especially when used in conjunction with other Monorepo tools.
  2. Configuration of build and test scripts: Although Yarn Workspaces optimizes dependency management, configuring cross-package build, test, and release processes may require additional work and tools (such as Lerna) in some scenarios.
  3. Specific tool dependencies: The use of Yarn Workspaces is limited to the Yarn package manager, which may not be suitable for teams preferring to use other tools like npm.
  4. Compatibility with older versions: In older versions of Yarn, some features of Workspaces may not be supported or may have limitations, requiring newer versions to fully utilize its functionality.
  5. Performance issues: In very large Monorepo projects, despite the optimizations provided by Yarn Workspaces, installation and build times of the project may still be affected, especially during initial installation or when adding new dependencies.

2.5 Pnpm Workspaces

pnpm has built-in support for monorepositories (AKA multi-package repositories, multi-project repositories, or monolithic repositories). You can create a workspace to unite multiple projects inside a single repository.

pnpm Workspaces is a tool for managing Monorepo projects, part of the pnpm (Performant npm) package manager, aimed at providing a more efficient package management solution compared to traditional npm and Yarn. Using pnpm Workspaces to manage Monorepo projects offers a range of advantages and potential limitations.

Advantages:

  1. Efficient storage and network utilization: pnpm utilizes hard and symbolic links to avoid redundant downloads and storage of identical package versions, significantly reducing disk space usage and installation time.
  2. Unified dependency management: With pnpm Workspaces, dependencies for all sub-projects can be managed at the root level of the Monorepo, simplifying the process of dependency installation and updates.
  3. Native Monorepo support: pnpm natively supports Monorepo structures without requiring additional configuration or tools to handle dependencies between sub-projects. Incremental installation: pnpm supports incremental installation, only installing dependencies that have changed, further speeding up the installation process.
  4. Strict dependency isolation: pnpm creates a separate dependency view for each package, tightly controlling package versions and avoiding version conflicts and unintended dependency overrides.

Disadvantages:

  1. Compatibility issues: Although pnpm strives to maintain compatibility with the npm ecosystem, certain dependencies may not install or work correctly due to pnpm’s strict dependency isolation mechanism.
  2. Toolchain integration: While community support for pnpm continues to grow, some tools or plugins may not fully support pnpm or its Workspaces feature, requiring additional configuration or adaptation work.

2.6 npm Workspaces

npm Workspaces is a feature introduced by npm starting from version 7, aimed at providing native support for Monorepo project management. This means developers can use npm to manage dependencies, build, and test multiple packages or projects without the need for additional tools. Here are some pros and cons of using npm Workspaces to develop Monorepo projects:

Advantages:

  1. Native support: As part of npm, npm Workspaces offers native support for Monorepo projects without the need to install additional package management tools.
  2. Dependency management: npm Workspaces allows unified management of dependencies at the root directory of the Monorepo, automatically handling dependencies between internal packages, simplifying the process of dependency installation and linking across projects.
  3. Simple configuration: Compared to other Monorepo tools, the configuration of npm Workspaces is relatively simple and straightforward, requiring only the declaration of workspaces in the root directory’s package.json.
  4. npm ecosystem: Integrated directly into npm, npm Workspaces seamlessly accesses and leverages npm’s vast ecosystem and toolchain, including features such as package security and version management.
  5. Consistency: Using npm Workspaces ensures that the same version of npm is used internally within the project, avoiding potential issues caused by different projects using different versions of npm.

Disadvantages:

  1. Feature limitations: Compared to some tools designed specifically for Monorepo projects (such as Lerna, Yarn Workspaces, etc.), npm Workspaces may have more basic functionality and lack some advanced features such as incremental builds and task execution optimization.
  2. Performance issues: For large Monorepo projects, npm Workspaces may encounter performance bottlenecks in dependency installation and management, especially during initial installation or when there are many shared dependencies.
  3. Newer features: Since npm Workspaces is a recent feature introduced in recent versions of npm, some older projects may need to upgrade npm versions to use it, which may involve compatibility adjustments.

2.7 Yalc

Better workflow than npm | yarn link for package authors.

Yalc is a tool focused on local package management, providing a lightweight yet powerful solution for Monorepo projects. Its main features include quickly publishing locally modified packages to a local registry and referencing them in other projects, as well as supporting rapid local iteration within a Monorepo to enhance development efficiency. Yalc’s simplicity and focus on local development make it a powerful tool for addressing local package management issues in Monorepo projects.

Advantages:

  1. Improves local workflow: Yalc allows developers to easily share and test packages between local projects without publishing to the npm registry, which is particularly useful for frequently changing packages in a Monorepo.
  2. Avoids common issues with npm link: Compared to npm link, Yalc provides a more stable way to link local packages, avoiding path and dependency resolution issues caused by global symbolic links.
  3. Simulates real package installation: Yalc copies package contents to the consumer project’s node_modules, closely resembling a real package installation process, helping developers identify and resolve potential packaging and installation issues.
  4. Easy rollback and updates: With Yalc, developers can more easily update or roll back to different versions of local packages to test different changes.

Disadvantages:

  1. Manual management: Unlike dependency auto-update tools, using Yalc requires developers to manually publish and update local packages, which may increase management overhead, especially in large Monorepo projects with frequent changes.
  2. Lack of automatic dependency resolution: In complex Monorepo structures where multiple packages depend on each other, managing these dependencies can be cumbersome because Yalc does not automatically resolve and update these cross-dependencies.
  3. Limited to local development: Yalc is primarily used for sharing and testing local packages and does not handle scenarios involving remote dependencies or integration into CI/CD pipelines.
  4. Community and tool support: Compared to mainstream package management tools like npm or Yarn, Yalc may have a smaller community and tool ecosystem, making it potentially more difficult to find solutions or best practices when encountering issues.

Yalc is a powerful tool for improving the sharing and testing process of local packages in a Monorepo environment, especially during the development phase. However, it also introduces the burden of manual management and may not be suitable for all projects.

2.8 Nx

Smart Monorepos · Fast CI

Nx is a powerful Monorepo tool developed by the Nrwl team. It provides comprehensive engineering and build tools for JavaScript and TypeScript projects, supporting various front-end and back-end technology stacks, including but not limited to Angular, React, and Node.js. There are unique advantages and potential limitations to using Nx to manage Monorepo projects.

Advantages:

  1. Enhanced development experience: Nx offers many features to improve development efficiency, including intelligent dependency graph analysis, incremental building and testing, all of which help speed up the build and CI processes.
  2. Consistency and scalability: Nx promotes code consistency and best practices while supporting a wide range of technology stacks and tools through its plugin system, making it ideal for large and multi-technology stack projects.
  3. Intelligent code generation and refactoring tools: Nx provides powerful scaffolding capabilities for generating component, service, and state management code, while also supporting automated refactoring to reduce manual coding work.
  4. Workspace abstraction: Nx’s workspace concept helps teams manage multiple projects and libraries, easily share code and resources without worrying about dependency conflicts.
  5. Visualization tools: Nx Console (a visual interface) provides a visual representation of project dependency graphs, making it easier to manage and understand large Monorepo projects.

Disadvantages:

  1. Learning curve: Nx offers a plethora of features and tools, which may come with a learning curve for beginners, especially for developers unfamiliar with command-line tools.
  2. Configuration complexity: While Nx aims to simplify Monorepo management, as project scale increases, configuring and managing Nx workspaces may become complex.
  3. Challenges of migrating old projects: Migrating existing non-Monorepo projects to Nx-managed Monorepo may require additional work, especially if the project structure and technology stack differ significantly from Nx’s best practices.
  4. Performance considerations: While Nx optimizes incremental building and dependency analysis, performance in building and testing remains a factor to consider, especially in large projects.
  5. Dependency-specific tools and practices: Nx encourages the use of specific tools and development practices, which may limit flexibility in using other tools or methods.

Nx provides robust support and optimization for developing large and complex Monorepo projects, especially suitable for teams pursuing efficient development processes and consistent codebases. However, project teams need to be prepared to invest time in learning Nx’s workflow and consider the balance between performance and configuration based on project requirements.

3. Detailed comparative analysis

The statistics of each Monorepo tool are sourced from the website stateofjs.com. Since the data for 2023 is not yet available, the data is up to the end of 2022. As the data gets updated, I will conduct further updates and comparative analysis.

Below, I will provide a brief analysis from four aspects: awareness, usage, interest, and satisfaction with Monorepo tools.

When we examine the development trends of Monorepo tools, a clear pattern of differentiation can be observed. Tools like pnpm and Turborepo are rapidly increasing their visibility in the industry, highlighting the enthusiastic embrace of new technological solutions by the development community. In contrast, while npm Workspaces has seen improvements in usage with the widespread adoption of npm versions, its popularity, along with Yarn Workspaces, has not shown the same growth momentum, reflecting a potential lag in innovation.

For actual application usages, we also observe a similar pattern. The adoption rate of Lerna has declined, implying that developers may be seeking new tools that better meet the needs of their complex projects. This is corroborated by the usage data of Yarn and npm Workspaces — both show a significant increase in usage. This indicates that developers increasingly favor a more integrated and native approach to Monorepo management. The outstanding performance of pnpm may be attributed to its performance advantages and developer-friendly storage mechanisms that are friendly to disk space.

In terms of interest, Turborepo, pnpm, and Nx are clearly in a leading position, while traditional tools like Yarn and Lerna are losing attention. This shift may indicate that as software development projects continue to grow and become more complex, developers are seeking tools that can provide more efficient and innovative solutions.

Retention is also an important metric for measuring the success of tools. Here, pnpm and Turborepo receive very high ratings, possibly because they excel in solving developers’ practical problems. At the same time, the satisfaction with traditional tools like Lerna is declining, implying that users expect these tools to make new breakthroughs in functionality and performance.

Taking all these data into account, we can conclude that the Monorepo tools market is undergoing a transformation, with emerging tools gradually gaining developers’ favor due to their advanced features and excellent performance. As for tools that have already established market positions, they must continue to innovate to maintain their competitiveness and appeal.

4. Monorepo Tool selection

When re-evaluating the choice of enterprise-level Monorepo tools, practicality and team adaptability are key factors in decision-making. If your team needs a robust version management and automated package publishing process, then Lerna remains a worthy consideration for managing multiple interdependent packages and optimizing this process.

However, by consulting the ‘Legacy Package Management’ section of the ‘Lerna’ official documentation, we understand that it will no longer be responsible for installing and linking dependencies in projects, delegating this task to superior package managers such as npm, yarn, and pnpm. The original text is as follows:

The important mental shift is to recognize that lerna is not responsible for installing and linking your dependencies in your repo, your package manager is much better suited to that task.

The way to achieve this is by using your package manager’s workspaces feature. See their respective documentation here:

npm (https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/using-npm/workspaces)

yarn (https://yarnpkg.com/features/workspaces)

pnpm (https://pnpm.io/workspaces)

So, I would suggest continuing to use Lerna for version control and package publishing, but at the same time, monitor its satisfaction and community support to ensure it meets the team’s long-term needs.

i. Combined with Yarn Workspaces, leverage its advantages for package dependency management and installation to enhance the development process and improve performance. First, you need to set up the following in package.json:

{
  "workspaces": ["packages/*"]
}

Configuration between submodules is as follows:

// modulea
{
  "name": "@xx/modulea",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "dependencies": {
    "@xx/moduleb": "1.0.0",
    "@xx/modulec": "1.0.0"
  }
}

Executing the yarn install command in the root directory installs dependencies and automatically links module dependencies between submodules. The dependency tree structure is as follows:

├── node_modules
│   ├── @babel
│   ├── @changesets
│   └── @xx # Ghost dependencies from submodules.
│       ├── modulea -> ../../packages/moduleA
│       ├── moduleb -> ../../packages/moduleB
│       └── modulec -> ../../packages/moduleC
├── package.json
├── packages
│   ├── moduleA
│   ├── moduleB
│   └── moduleC
└── yarn.lock

ii. Adopt Pnpm Workspaces to leverage its excellent storage mechanism and fast installation speed to optimize the performance of the Monorepo. Add a pnpm-workspace.yaml configuration file to the root directory, with the following content:

packages:
  - "packages/**"

Configuration between submodules is as follows:

// modulea
{
  "name": "@xx/moduleA",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "dependencies": {
    "@xx/moduleB": "workspace:*",
    "@xx/moduleC": "workspace:*"
  }
}

Execute the command ‘pnpm install’ in the root directory to install dependencies, and it will automatically associate module dependencies between submodule. The dependency tree structure is as follows:

├── node_modules
│   ├── @babel
│   └── @changesets
├── package.json
├── packages
│   ├── moduleA
│   │   └── node_modules
│   │       └── @xx
│   │           ├── moduleb -> ../../../moduleB
│   │           └── modulec -> ../../../moduleC
│   ├── moduleB
│   │   └── node_modules
│   │       └── @xx
│   │           └── modulec -> ../../../moduleC
│   └── moduleC
├── pnpm-lock.yaml
└── pnpm-workspace.yaml

From the above, it can be seen that using Yarn will flatten out the dependencies of submodules to the outermost layer, which can cause the phenomenon of ‘phantom dependencies’, leading to unclear dependency relationships in the project and causing some confusion for developers. In contrast, the dependency tree structure of Pnpm is more in line with conventional understanding, making the entire dependency relationship more transparent and controllable. Therefore, in the end, we decided to choose Pnpm as the dependency management tool for the Monorepo project.

In conclusion, before implementing any solution, thorough requirements analysis should be conducted, taking into account the team’s proficiency, their acceptance of tool changes, and the adaptability of the tools to the existing CI/CD processes. Additionally, adequate time and resources should be provided for the team to transition to the new tools, and a phased implementation plan should be devised. This will allow for a gradual assessment of the effectiveness and resolution of any issues encountered during the implementation process. Ultimately, the chosen tool should synergize with the team’s workflow and enhance productivity rather than become a burden.

Nodejs
Node Js Development
Monorepo
Recommended from ReadMedium