feat(plugin-webpack): Allow each entrypoint to specify nodeIntegration

[chetbox]

• I have read the contribution documentation for this project.
• I agree to follow the code of conduct that this project follows, as appropriate.
• The changes are appropriately documented (if applicable).
• The changes have sufficient test coverage (if applicable).
• The testsuite passes successfully on my local machine (if applicable).

Summarize your changes:

Summarize your changes:

Note that this replaces #2856 based on this suggestion.

We have multiple BrowserWindows in our project, some which use nodeIntegration: false and some which use nodeIntegration: true.

Without this change we get the error require is not defined at runtime in the BrowserWindows with nodeIntegration: false.

We didn't need to do this with older versions of @electron-forge/plugin-webpack that used Webpack 4 where we could simply not import any Node JS modules and just use browser-targeted modules.

@electron-forge/plugin-webpack only allows us to set one target for all entrypoints. This change allows overriding the nodeIntegration value for a specific entrypoint. e.g.

  plugins: [
    [
      '@electron-forge/plugin-webpack',
      {
        mainConfig: './webpack.main.config.js',
        renderer: {
          config: './webpack.renderer.config.js',
          nodeIntegration: true, // Implies `target: 'electron-renderer'` for all entrypoints
          entryPoints: [
            {
              html: './src/app/app.html',
              js: './src/app/app.tsx',
              name: 'app'
            },
            {
              html: './src/mediaPlayer/index.html',
              js: './src/mediaPlayer/index.tsx',
              name: 'media_player',
              nodeIntegration: false
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    ]

This uses Webpack's ability to pass an array of webpack configurations rather than a single configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2867 (cc960e6) into master (0490472) will decrease coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2867      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.69%   71.57%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          79       79              
  Lines        2392     2392              
  Branches      450      452       +2     
==========================================
- Hits         1715     1712       -3     
- Misses        454      551      +97     
+ Partials      223      129      -94     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/plugin/webpack/src/WebpackPlugin.ts	38.00% <0.00%> (-0.58%)	⬇️
packages/plugin/webpack/src/WebpackConfig.ts	98.71% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
packages/maker/base/src/Maker.ts	69.69% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/api/make.ts	79.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/api/start.ts	64.04% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/util/hook.ts	75.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/api/import.ts	61.76% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/api/package.ts	75.55% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/api/publish.ts	68.42% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/api/core/src/util/out-dir.ts	66.66% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 10 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0490472...cc960e6. Read the comment docs.

[chetbox]

@malept, is this more in line with what you had in mind based on your comment here?

[chetbox]

I've rebased these changed and fixed conflicts with the latest changes in master.

I'm currently maintaining a fork of this here in case others need it: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@electron-forge/plugin-webpack

Any feedback on if this is the right approach would be appreciated.

[VerteDinde]

Hey @chetbox, thanks for submitting this PR! Overall, I think your implementation looks good - changing the rendererConfig return from a single config to an array of configs and handling the nodeIntegration at each entryPoint seems like a fine approach.

Would you mind rebasing this PR against current main, so we can get a fresh run of the test suite? We've merged some webpack work since you opened this PR, and I just want to make sure that the changes still pass with this new config generation. If the tests go green, I'm fine approving and merging 🙇‍♀️

[chetbox]

Thank you kindly for the review @VerteDinde! I've rebased the changes against master. There seem to be some CI errors with the fast-tests but I don't believe those are to do with the changes here. If there's anything I've missed please let me know.

[chetbox]

Hey @VerteDinde! Is this good to go or do you need anything else from me?

[VerteDinde]

@chetbox Ah, I missed that the test re-run had passed! I'll approve and merge - thanks again for submitting this PR! 🙇‍♀️

[johannesgiani]

❤️ 🙏 I've been waiting for this!