Extend signature of getAssetTransformRules

[ilteoood]

Description

I'm using the getAssetTransformRules function in the following way:

Repack.getAssetTransformRules({svg: 'svgr'})

To reduce the amount of boilerplace, I would love to pass some options to @svgr/webpack like dimensions: false.

Suggested solution

Would you consider a contribution in order to extend the signature of getAssetTransformRules to allow an additional option name svgOptions, or something like that?

If not, I would like to contribute using the right approach that works for you.

Additional context

No response

[jbroma]

Hey @ilteoood 👋

sure, we could support an object in addition to strings svgr | xml | uri, something like:

{
  type: 'svgr',
  options: { ... }
}

the type of options should most likely be Record<string, any> to avoid depending on svgr. What do you think about this approach? Feel free to open a PR for this 👍

[ilteoood]

Hi @jbroma 👋

Thanks for the quick reply.

Just to confirm: following your proposal, the signature of the svg field would become something like

 svg?: 'svgr' | 'xml' | 'uri' | { type: 'svgr' | 'xml' | 'uri', options: Record<string, any> };

Just one thing: what if instead of Record<string, any, I use Record<string, unknown>?

[jbroma]

we should probably just stick with this something like this:

svg?: 'svgr' | 'xml' | 'uri' | { type: 'svgr', options: Record<string, any> };

it doesn't make much sense for other variants to have that sort of configuration.
As for any vs unknown - what's your reasoning behind this?

[ilteoood]

Most of the projects has eslint rules that ban any. I haven't looked at this repo yet, but if for you is not a concern then I can go for it!

[jbroma]

Most of the projects has eslint rules that ban any. I haven't looked at this repo yet, but if for you is not a concern then I can go for it!

in this case it should be fine, I think any will get less in a way than unknown from the library user perspective :)