npm-shrinkwrap | A consistent shrinkwrap tool | Hashing library

Primordials are used by Node.js internal modules and are not accessible to end user scripts. (That's their entire point for existing. Otherwise, you could modify Object.prototype and end up affecting Node.js internals, causing weird crashes and things like that.)

The module that is giving you this error is the natives module. The page for the package says:

This module relies on Node.js's internals and will break at some point. Do not use it, and update to graceful-fs@4.x.

Sounds like it's at that point where it's broken. Use npm ls natives to find out what's using it. (You might need to be in the /Applications/MAMP/htdocs/wordpress/wp-content/themes/theming-main directory when you run the command.) From there, you can try to figure out how to get rid of it.

Another possibility would be to try downgrading to an earlier version of Node.js to see if it works with that version.

You should start by reading the documentation on the website.

https://docs.docker.com/compose/

The first page shows a working example of a simple compose file with a web service and redis service. If you managed to get the containers running, then the options found in the Compose file reference will be very familiar to you.

You may find this link of particular interest in regards to using an existing Docker network:

https://docs.docker.com/compose/networking/#use-a-pre-existing-network

You are not checking out your code and directly running NPM CI. Below piece of code should do the job for you

It turns out that the default user in mcr.microsoft.com/windows/nanoserver:1809 is ContainerUser, a non-administrator account. I'm not sure the exact permissions Docker's COPY command uses on Windows containers. On Linux it creates files owned by root though, so something similar in Windows. Switching to the ContainerAdministrator user (USER ContainerAdministrator) for the npm install process fixed my permissions problems.

TL;DR: it sounds like the package-lock.json needs some updates and resolution, which is done primarily with npm install.

It sounds like the package-lock.json no longer "agrees" with your package.json. It also sounds like others on your team are avoiding committing the changes to your package-lock.json; this is a bad practice in my experience as it only deepens any divergence in their contents. Over time they can be out of sync when dependencies of dependencies may publish a bug fix release and potentially un-publish a previous version.

As a junior dev on this team, I would bring this up to your development/team lead and ask their preferred approach here. If there was a major dependency intentionally removed and that has a lot of its own dependencies, it could cause a large removal of lines from package-lock.json and look severe to one less accustomed to it.

Extra context:

During an install, npm installs the dependencies and development dependencies listed in your package.json. In the process it's possible and increasingly likely over time, that some of the dependencies of those dependencies, which are needed to execute, will overlap and often with conflicting versions. The execution of npm i(nstall) will attempt to reconcile all these competing versions of sub-dependencies for you.

In a Continuous Integration context, it is desirable for the alternate command npm ci to be used, which explicitly installs only what's resolved already, from package-lock.json (the formerly known as "shrinkwrap"). This is meant to reduce the "but it works on my machine!" moments. As a developer, I've found it to be preferable to use npm install, as this alerts the developers more quickly to any dependency resolution issues and keeps the package-lock.json up to date.

It's looking for the "primordials" method in graceful-fs, trying to reinstall this dependency.

About npm, try reinstalling nodejs again, probably your npm is corrupted

About AppData is not visible or is a hidden directory in Windows, you can access it by path in Windows Explorer

Remove the eslint from dependencies as it is already present in the dev dependencies. It should look similar to this:

Recent changes in chaincode seems to have introduced a bad depedency. There is an ongoing discussion in the Hyperledger Fabric Rocketchat where someone claims that they are patching it now.

A link to the discussion: https://chat.hyperledger.org/channel/fabric?msg=9FYkjy8SLyB6bBN2C

Update: Allegedly, this PR will fix the dependency issue: https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-chaincode-node/pull/174/files

Update2: The Pr seems to have been merged. I managed to start a fresh Fabric network without touching any dependencies.

Setting the CI environment variable to true effects how npm gathers usage data.

How it effects npm is explained in the Does npm send any information about me back to the registry section of the docs (For convenience, I've provided a verbatim copy of that section below). Consider particularly the description about the Npm-In-CI header.

In summary, setting CI=true causes npm to set the Npm-In-CI header to true, thus as a result the data gathered (by npm) assumes the package(s) are being installed via a "build farm", (i.e. for Continuous Integration purposes), instead of a "human".

The following is what is stated in the docs at the aforementioned link:

Does npm send any information about me back to the registry?

Yes.

When making requests of the registry npm adds two headers with information about your environment:

• Npm-Scope – If your project is scoped, this header will contain its scope. In the future npm hopes to build registry features that use this information to allow you to customize your experience for your organization.
• Npm-In-CI – Set to “true” if npm believes this install is running in a continuous integration environment, “false” otherwise. This is detected by looking for the following environment variables: CI, TDDIUM, JENKINS_URL, bamboo.buildKey. If you’d like to learn more you may find the original PR interesting. This is used to gather better metrics on how npm is used by humans, versus build farms.

With regards to the specific part of your question, i.e.

Does the CI=true even effect the install?

Generally "No", there is no notable difference to the resultant installation by npm with or without CI=true.

However, a possible scenario whereby the installation of a package by npm could/may be effected, is if a package author defined a postinstall script in package.json that performed different conditional logic if/when the CI environment variable is set to true.

Regarding the last part of your question, i.e.

Also, is there a difference between ...

The accepted answer to this question addresses that.

In summary;

• Your first two commands are similar - they both set the environment variable for the current shell only.
• However your last example that utilizes export sets the environment variable for the current shell and all processes started from the current shell.