From 3e982e89e64926ca6373b08033876f662bb708db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: EuAndreh <eu@euandre.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:32:21 -0300
Subject: src/content/blog/2018/07/17/guix-nixos.adoc: Update to asciidoc

---
 .../blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc    | 192 ++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)

(limited to 'src/content/blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc')

diff --git a/src/content/blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc b/src/content/blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc
index f896c6c..2692ed1 100644
--- a/src/content/blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc
+++ b/src/content/blog/2018/08/01/npm-ci-reproducibility.adoc
@@ -1,85 +1,89 @@
----
-title: Verifying "npm ci" reproducibility
-date: 2018-08-01
-layout: post
-lang: en
-ref: verifying-npm-ci-reproducibility
-updated_at: 2019-05-22
----
-When [npm@5](https://blog.npmjs.org/post/161081169345/v500) came bringing
-[package-locks](https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package-locks) with it, I was
-confused about the benefits it provided, since running `npm install` more than
-once could resolve all the dependencies again and yield yet another fresh
-`package-lock.json` file. The message saying "you should add this file to
-version control" left me hesitant on what to do[^package-lock-message].
-
-However the [addition of `npm ci`](https://blog.npmjs.org/post/171556855892/introducing-npm-ci-for-faster-more-reliable)
-filled this gap: it's a stricter variation of `npm install` which
-guarantees that "[subsequent installs are able to generate identical trees](https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package-lock.json)". But are they
-really identical? I could see that I didn't have the same problems of
-different installation outputs, but I didn't know for **sure** if it
-was really identical.
-
-## Computing the hash of a directory's content
-
-I quickly searched for a way to check for the hash signature of an
-entire directory tree, but I couldn't find one. I've made a poor
-man's [Merkle tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree)
-implementation using `sha256sum` and a few piped commands at the
-terminal:
-
-```bash
+= Verifying "npm ci" reproducibility
+
+:empty:
+:npm-5: https://blog.npmjs.org/post/161081169345/v500
+:package-locks-old: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package-locks
+:package-lock: https://docs.npmjs.com/files/package-lock.json
+:add-npm-ci: https://blog.npmjs.org/post/171556855892/introducing-npm-ci-for-faster-more-reliable
+:cli-docs: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/install#description
+:tricky-issue: https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/17979#issuecomment-332701215
+
+When {npm-5}[npm@5] came bringing {package-locks-old}[package-locks] with it, I
+was confused about the benefits it provided, since running `npm install` more
+than once could resolve all the dependencies again and yield yet another fresh
+`package-lock.json` file.  The message saying "you should add this file to
+version control" left me hesitant on what to
+do{empty}footnote:package-lock-message[
+  {cli-docs}[documentation] claims `npm install` is driven by the existing
+  `package-lock.json`, but that's actually {tricky-issue}[a little bit tricky].
+].
+
+However the {add-npm-ci}[addition of `npm ci`] filled this gap: it's a stricter
+variation of `npm install` which guarantees that "{package-lock}[subsequent
+installs are able to generate identical trees]".  But are they really identical?
+I could see that I didn't have the same problems of different installation
+outputs, but I didn't know for *sure* if it was really identical.
+
+== Computing the hash of a directory's content
+
+:merkle-tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
+
+I quickly searched for a way to check for the hash signature of an entire
+directory tree, but I couldn't find one.  I've made a poor man's
+{merkle-tree}[Merkle tree] implementation using `sha256sum` and a few piped
+commands at the terminal:
+
+[source,sh]
+----
 merkle-tree () {
-  dirname="${1-.}"
-  pushd "$dirname"
-  find . -type f              | \
-    sort                      | \
-    xargs -I{} sha256sum "{}" | \
-    sha256sum                 | \
-    awk '{print $1}'
-  popd
+	dirname="${1-.}"
+	pushd "$dirname"
+	find . -type f |
+		sort                      |
+		xargs -I{} sha256sum "{}" |
+		sha256sum                 |
+		awk '{print $1}'
+	popd
 }
-```
+----
 
 Going through it line by line:
 
-- #1 we define a Bash function called `merkle-tree`;
-- #2 it accepts a single argument: the directory to compute the
-  merkle tree from. If nothing is given, it runs on the current
-  directory (`.`);
-- #3 we go to the directory, so we don't get different prefixes in
-  `find`'s output (like `../a/b`);
-- #4 we get all files from the directory tree. Since we're using
-  `sha256sum` to compute the hash of the file contents, we need to
-  filter out folders from it;
-- #5 we need to sort the output, since different file systems and
-  `find` implementations may return files in different orders;
-- #6 we use `xargs` to compute the hash of each file individually
-  through `sha256sum`. Since a file may contain spaces we need to
-  escape it with quotes;
-- #7 we compute the hash of the combined hashes. Since `sha256sum`
-  output is formatted like `<hash> <filename>`, it produces a
-  different final hash if a file ever changes name without changing
-  it's content;
-- #8 we get the final hash output, excluding the `<filename>` (which
-    is `-` in this case, aka `stdin`).
-
-### Positive points:
-
-1.  ignore timestamp: running more than once on different installation
-    yields the same hash;
-2.  the name of the file is included in the final hash computation.
-
-### Limitations:
-
-1.  it ignores empty folders from the hash computation;
-2.  the implementation's only goal is to represent using a digest
-    whether the content of a given directory is the same or not. Leaf
-    presence checking is obviously missing from it.
-
-### Testing locally with sample data
-
-```bash
+* #1 we define a Bash function called `merkle-tree`;
+* #2 it accepts a single argument: the directory to compute the merkle tree from
+  If nothing is given, it runs on the current directory (`.`);
+* #3 we go to the directory, so we don't get different prefixes in `find`'s
+  output (like `../a/b`);
+* #4 we get all files from the directory tree.  Since we're using `sha256sum` to
+  compute the hash of the file contents, we need to filter out folders from it;
+* #5 we need to sort the output, since different file systems and `find`
+  implementations may return files in different orders;
+* #6 we use `xargs` to compute the hash of each file individually through
+  `sha256sum`.  Since a file may contain spaces we need to escape it with
+  quotes;
+* #7 we compute the hash of the combined hashes.  Since `sha256sum` output is
+  formatted like `<hash> <filename>`, it produces a different final hash if a
+  file ever changes name without changing it's content;
+* #8 we get the final hash output, excluding the `<filename>` (which is `-` in
+  this case, aka `stdin`).
+
+=== Positive points:
+
+. ignore timestamp: running more than once on different installation yields the
+  same hash;
+. the name of the file is included in the final hash computation.
+
+=== Limitations:
+
+. it ignores empty folders from the hash computation;
+. the implementation's only goal is to represent using a digest whether the
+  content of a given directory is the same or not.  Leaf presence checking is
+  obviously missing from it.
+
+=== Testing locally with sample data
+
+[source,sh]
+----
 mkdir /tmp/merkle-tree-test/
 cd /tmp/merkle-tree-test/
 mkdir -p a/b/ a/c/ d/
@@ -94,18 +98,21 @@ rm d/four.txt
 merkle-tree . # output back to  be343bb01fe00aeb8fef14a3e16b1c3d1dccbf86d7e41b4753e6ccb7dc3a57c3
 echo "hidden-five" > a/b/one.txt
 merkle-tree . # output changed  471fae0d074947e4955e9ac53e95b56e4bc08d263d89d82003fb58a0ffba66f5
-```
+----
 
 It seems to work for this simple test case.
 
 You can try copying and pasting it to verify the hash signatures.
 
-## Using `merkle-tree` to check the output of `npm ci`
+== Using `merkle-tree` to check the output of `npm ci`
 
-*I've done all of the following using Node.js v8.11.3 and npm@6.1.0.*
+_I've done all of the following using Node.js v8.11.3 and npm@6.1.0_.
 
 In this test case I'll take the main repo of
-[Lerna](https://lernajs.io/)[^lerna-package-lock]:
+https://lernajs.io/[Lerna]footnote:lerna-package-lock[
+  Finding a big known repo that actually committed the `package-lock.json` file
+  was harder than I expected.
+]:
 
 ```bash
 cd /tmp/
@@ -123,26 +130,17 @@ merkle-tree node_modules/ # outputs 11e218c4ac32fac8a9607a8da644fe870a25c9982116
 
 Good job `npm ci` :)
 
-#6 and #9 take some time to run (21 seconds in my machine), but this
-specific use case isn't performance sensitive. The slowest step is
-computing the hash of each individual file.
+#6 and #9 take some time to run (21 seconds in my machine), but this specific
+use case isn't performance sensitive.  The slowest step is computing the hash of
+each individual file.
 
-## Conclusion
+== Conclusion
 
 `npm ci` really "generates identical trees".
 
-I'm not aware of any other existing solution for verifying the hash
-signature of a directory. If you know any I'd
-[like to know](mailto:{{ site.author.email }}).
+I'm not aware of any other existing solution for verifying the hash signature of
+a directory.  If you know any, shoot me an email, as I'd like to know it.
 
-## *Edit*
+== *Edit*
 
 2019-05-22: Fix spelling.
-
-[^package-lock-message]: The
-    [documentation](https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/install#description) claims `npm
-    install` is driven by the existing `package-lock.json`, but that's actually
-    [a little bit tricky](https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/17979#issuecomment-332701215).
-
-[^lerna-package-lock]: Finding a big known repo that actually committed the
-    `package-lock.json` file was harder than I expected.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

