Not able change entry

[lubo08]

I would like to change for node js development index.js to server.js but I get error when I rename index.js to server.js

/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/start-server-webpack-plugin/dist/StartServerPlugin.js:81
var existsAt = compilation.assets[name].existsAt;
^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'existsAt' of undefined
at StartServerPlugin.startServer (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/start-server-webpack-plugin/dist/StartServerPlugin.js:81:47)
at StartServerPlugin.afterEmit (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/start-server-webpack-plugin/dist/StartServerPlugin.js:54:12)
at Compiler.applyPluginsAsyncSeries1 (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/tapable/lib/Tapable.js:222:13)
at Compiler.afterEmit (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/webpack/lib/Compiler.js:365:9)
at require.forEach.err (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/webpack/lib/Compiler.js:354:15)
at /home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/webpack/node_modules/async/dist/async.js:473:16
at iteratorCallback (/home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/webpack/node_modules/async/dist/async.js:1050:13)
at /home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/webpack/node_modules/async/dist/async.js:958:16
at /home/lubo08/workspace/bimp/node_modules/graceful-fs/graceful-fs.js:43:10
at FSReqWrap.oncomplete (fs.js:137:15)
neutrino config is

module.exports = {
options: {
// Override to relative file, resolves to options.source + entry.*
entry: 'server',
},
use: [
'neutrino-preset-node',
'neutrino-preset-airbnb-base'
]
};

[helfi92]

Is it possible that compilation.assets[name] is undefined?

[eliperelman]

I tracked this down, and it's a bug. Even though the option is named entry, when we create the webpack entry with config.entry(), we still use index, i.e. config.entry('index'). This causes the built file to still be index.js, while the start server plugin is looking for server.js.

[eliperelman]

Fixed with #469. Released in v7.3.3.

[edmorley]

For hotfixes in general, what do you think is best: landing on master then backporting, or vice versa? I know of projects that do it both ways, though have a slight preference to the former :-)

[eliperelman]

I would generally prefer landing on master first then backporting, but I opted for the other approach right now since the packages have completely diverged between master and release.

[lubo08]

Thanks a lot for so fast fix :) working right now.