Replace underscore by lodash

[Kureev]

As far as we agreed to merge rnpm into react-native core, we need to align our dependencies to exclude duplications. One of the steps forward would be to use the same utilities library. According to the thread on fb, everybody is fine with replacing underscore by lodash (which we use internally for rnpm).

So, here we go!

cc @mkonicek@davidaurelio@grabbou

Test plan

$ npm test

Code formatting

Changes are aligned with the current style guide.

[facebook-github-bot]

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @vjeux, @ide and @martinbigio to be potential reviewers.

[grabbou]

Thanks, looks good to me. I am pretty sure you will have to squash commits, but you can probably wait till someone confirms nothing to be changed here.

[Kureev]

@grabbou Yeah, I'll keep them separated for now (easier to revert if needed), but later on I can squash them into one.

[satya164]

@grabbou

I am pretty sure you will have to squash commits

The bot will squash commits when this gets merged :)

[bestander]

@satya164, when it is ready, instead of shipit do import, and ping me.
I'll need to update npm deps internally

[satya164]

@bestander Okies. I will :)

[satya164]

Can we require individual modules instead of the whole package? For example require('lodash/flattenDeep')?

Doesn't make any difference since it's just the packager though.

[gaearon]

Can we require individual modules instead of the whole package? For example require('lodash/flattenDeep')?

Agree that this would be nicer. Less code to process is better 👍

[satya164]

Why not use lodash/omit ?

[Kureev]

Ideally, I'd like to replace lodash by a self-written functions (to eliminate one of the ext. dependencies). But I think we shouldn't include it in this PR.

[grabbou]

I think i'd be nice to just add a small test suite for that then.

[Kureev]

@grabbou that would mean that we need to extract this function somewhere. I'd like to do it, but I have no clue where to put it. Any suggestions?

[satya164]

Looks good overall. This is awesome, because lots of other packages are using lodash anyways. The less deps, the better.

[Kureev]

I agree about individual modules, but I remember in the facebook thread @davidaurelio had some objections about it.

[satya164]

@Kureev

I agree about individual modules, but I remember in the facebook thread @davidaurelio had some objections about it.

Let's wait for @davidaurelio 's feedback then.

@satya164 Ideally, I'd like to replace lodash by self-written functions (to eliminate one of the ext. dependencies).

IMO it's not worth it, lodash is used by lots of packages. So we're not really getting rid of it.

[Kureev]

@satya164 maybe you're right. But as you said, let's wait for the @davidaurelio's feedback first 👍

[mkonicek]

Thank you for doing this!

[satya164]

ping @davidaurelio

[mkonicek]

David is very busy trying to merge the PRs that will unbreak Travis. Let's please hold on with this until Travis is green. Thanks for the patience!

[satya164]

ping @davidaurelio

[facebook-github-bot]

@Kureev updated the pull request.

[Kureev]

I rebased this branch by the latest master. Now tests should be all green 🍏

[davidaurelio]

@facebook-github-bot shipit

[davidaurelio]

I will hold this until Monday. It will get in the next version.

[facebook-github-bot]

Thanks for importing. If you are an FB employee go to Phabricator to review.

[Kureev]

👍

[mkonicek]

Hey guys, I'm merging #6346 and then this one right after.

[davidaurelio]

thanks @mkonicek

[mkonicek]

OK #6346 is landing internally now, once it lands want to rebase this one on top of it because both require updating the npm-shrinkwrap.json file. It's late in London now so will continue in the morning. Thanks for the patience!

[Kureev]

ping me when I can rebase

[mkonicek]

Turns out #6346 doesn't work with our internal build based on Buck so we can probably merge this one first.

[mkonicek]

(oops wrong button 😃 )

[mkonicek]

OK I did some investigation and this PR is in fact blocked on #6346. When I try merging this PR on its own and regenerate npm-shrinkwrap.json the packager doesn't work when used with npm 2.

The root of the problem is we can't regenerate npm-shrinkwrap.json in a way that works with npm 2, and since changes to package.json require npm-shrinkwrap.json to be regenerated, we can't merge any PRs that change package.json until #6346 lands.

[Kureev]

[davidaurelio]

Can we get away with lodash 3? babel depends on that. In that case, npm install puts three versions of lodash in the tree. If we need v4, we end up with 20.

[davidaurelio]

no need to update the PR. I have it updated internally

[Kureev]

@davidaurelio sure, thanks! I think it should work even without any code changes (except the lodash version in package.json).

@grabbou we probably need to follow up on this in the link and install plugins (just to be sure that it works with lodash@3 without any code changes).

[grabbou]

Yeah, let's apply updates to our internal packages once this is merged.