Enforce npm 11.10.0 minimum via devEngines and engine-strict

[NicolasBonet]

Details

This PR enforces minimum Node/npm toolchain versions as a prerequisite for adopting npm's min-release-age config (the upcoming supply-chain cooldown for newly published package versions). That config shipped in npm 11.10.0 — older npm versions silently ignore it, which would give a false sense of protection. The Node version pinned in .nvmrc until now (24.11.0) bundles npm 11.6.x, which is below that floor.

Changes:

• .nvmrc: 24.11.0 → 24.19.0 (same Node 24.x LTS line; bundles npm 11.17.0).
• package.json: add devEngines.packageManager requiring npm >=11.10.0 (where min-release-age shipped) with onFail: "error". devEngines is only evaluated for the root project, never when this package is installed as a dependency, so the tooling-only npm floor cannot break consumers. The published engines field is unchanged (node >=20.19.5, npm >=10.8.2).
• New .npmrc with engine-strict=true so installs under a non-compliant toolchain fail fast instead of warning.
• .gitignore: stop ignoring .npmrc so it can be tracked (publishing now uses OIDC trusted publishing via the shared npmPublish.yml workflow, so CI no longer writes a token .npmrc into the repo).
• package-lock.json: regenerated under Node 24.19.0 / npm 11.17.0 (no dependency changes).

All GitHub workflows already read node-version-file: .nvmrc, so they pick up 24.19.0 automatically.

Related Issues

For https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/675045

Linked E/App PR

Expensify/App#99436

Automated Tests

No tests added — this PR only changes toolchain configuration (.nvmrc, engines, .npmrc); no runtime code is touched. Enforcement itself was verified manually (see below).

Manual Tests

1. Under Node 24.19.0 / npm 11.17.0, run npm ci — completes successfully.
2. With the devEngines npm floor temporarily set to an unsatisfiable range, npm install --dry-run under npm 11.17.0 fails fast with exit code 1, confirming enforcement fires:

   npm error code EBADDEVENGINES
   npm error EBADDEVENGINES Invalid devEngines.packageManager
   npm error EBADDEVENGINES Invalid semver version ">=99.0.0" does not match "11.17.0" for "packageManager"
   

3. Consumer safety: ran npm pack and installed the resulting tarball into a scratch project with engine-strict=true under both npm 10.8.2 (Node 20.20.0) and npm 11.17.0 — both succeed with no EBADENGINE/EBADDEVENGINES, confirming the npm floor does not propagate to consumers. Also confirmed the packed tarball contains no .npmrc.

Known gap: npm <10.9 predates devEngines and silently ignores it, but .nvmrc and all CI workflows pin Node 24.19.0 (npm 11.17.0), so contributors on the standard setup get the enforced floor.

Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Related Issues section above
• I linked the corresponding Expensify/App PR in the ### Linked E/App PR section above, and verified this change against it (E/App CI passed and manual testing completed)
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android / native
  • Android / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[github-actions]

All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

[NicolasBonet]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a0e46ccad0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[os-botify]

🚀 Published to npm in 3.0.109 🎉