fix: use esbuild platform browser/node instead of neutral #8714
+57
−4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for vite-docs-main ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
patak-dev
changed the title
patak-dev
added
the
p4-important
Co-authored-by: 翠 / green <green@sapphi.red>
patak-dev
commented
Jun 22, 2022
sapphi-red
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2022
9 tasks
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
fixes #8704
fixes #8702
fixes #8712
Alternative to:
We discussed with @bluwy and @sapphi-red that it is better to use esbuild resolution if possible.
Also, looks like we will need to use 'browser'/'node' instead of 'neutral', I'm seeing code that won't run even with the
mainFieldsdefined IIUC in esbuild: https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/blob/79975460813c6765de1df858efd671ea5e7e6897/internal/resolver/package_json.go#L349. Later we could ask a feature to disable the automatic replacement ofprocess.env.NODE_ENV, but seems that it is safer to use the right platformWhat is the purpose of this pull request?