Publishing packages

A package project is an ordinary bino project whose bino.toml carries a [package] table. It is authored in git like any other project - you preview it, lint it, and review it in pull requests - and bino publish ships it to a registry as an immutable version.

There is no second manifest file and no separate project type: the presence of [package] is what makes a project publishable.

Scaffolding one

bino init predef -d finance-kit
cd finance-kit

The wizard asks for the registry scope, package name, description, visibility, tags and category and writes them into the [package] table. Every namespaced manifest already carries @scope/name, so there is nothing to search and replace afterwards. Non-interactive runs pass the same values with --set, for example --set Scope=myorg --set Visibility=public -y.

The scaffold is a working example rather than a skeleton:

finance-kit/
├── bino.toml                    # engine pin, [package], [dependencies]
├── components/revenue_table.yaml
├── styles/corporate_theme.yaml
├── resources/logo.yaml          # an Asset
├── resources/logo.png           # the bytes it points at
└── mocks/                       # sample data + a page, so you can preview it

mocks/ is the convention that makes a package previewable without a consumer: it holds a dataset and a small report page that renders the package’s definitions. It is never part of a published package, so bino preview works out of the box and the mock data never leaves your repository.

The [package] table

engine-version = "1.2.3"

[package]
name        = "@acme/finance-kit"   # the registry coordinate
description = "IBCS finance report building blocks"
tags        = ["finance", "ibcs"]
category    = "components"
visibility  = "private"             # only used when the package is created

# Warn-only semver ranges, reported to consumers on install:
compat-engine = ">=1.2.0"
compat-cli    = ">=0.92.0"

# Which files ship. The default is every canonical manifest folder plus
# resources/, minus mocks/, reports/ and .bino/.
include = ["components", "styles", "resources"]

# What the registry snapshots for its preview: "path#definition-name".
preview = "components/waterfall.yaml#@acme/finance-kit/waterfall"

[dependencies]                      # the same table a report project uses
"@acme/base-style" = "2.1.0"

visibility only takes effect when the package is created. Afterwards the registry owns it - change it in the web UI, not here.

Naming definitions

Every document a package ships must be named under the package:

• @acme/finance-kit - the package’s main definition, at most one;
• @acme/finance-kit/waterfall - any other definition.

Consumers reference either form with an ordinary ref. bino lint checks this along with the rest of the package ruleset, which activates automatically when [package] is present:

bino lint

It flags definitions named outside the package, artefact and credential kinds that cannot be published, absolute localPath values, and refs to names that are neither in the package nor a declared dependency.

What a package may contain

Documents	.yaml / .yml manifests. One file may hold several ----separated definitions.
Resources	.png, .jpg, .jpeg, .webp, .gif, .csv, .xlsx, .parquet
Layout	At most one directory level - components/waterfall.yaml is fine, components/tables/waterfall.yaml is not
Size	50 files, 1 MB per manifest, 50 MB per resource

Two things are refused before anything is uploaded, whatever include says: anything under secrets/ or signing/, and any document declaring a ConnectionSecret or SigningProfile. Symbolic links are refused too - the file you see would not be the file that ships.

Publishing

bino registry login          # once, with a bino_pat_ token from the web UI
bino publish --dry-run       # validate against the registry, mint nothing
bino publish --bump minor

--bump is patch, minor or major; the registry mints the version from it (the first publish is always 1.0.0). Use --json for a machine-readable result.

The registry is the validation authority. bino publish runs your local lint first and prints what it finds, but a package that lints clean can still be rejected - the registry validates the uploaded tree with its own bino and engine. When it does reject, the output names both versions:

✗ The registry rejected this package:
  • components/waterfall.yaml:12: [error] unknown field "colour" (schema-validation)

ℹ validated by bino 0.92.5 / engine 1.4.0 (registry)
ℹ             bino 0.94.0 / engine 1.5.0 (here)

A gap between those two lines is the usual explanation for a package that is valid locally and invalid remotely.

Republishing and CI

Publishing the same content twice is not an error. The registry recognises the identical file manifest and reports the version that already carries it:

✓ @acme/finance-kit is unchanged - already published as 1.3.0

That makes a re-run of a CI job safe, so publishing on a tag is a two-line step:

export BINO_REGISTRY_TOKEN="bino_pat_..."
bino publish --bump patch

Versions are immutable and there is no unpublish. --dry-run is worth the extra minute in a pipeline that publishes automatically.

Consuming it

Nothing about consumption is special - see Registry and dependencies:

bino registry add @acme/finance-kit

spec:
  children:
    - kind: Table
      ref: "@acme/finance-kit/waterfall"
      params:
        REGION: EU