fix(resolve): improve browser filed substitutions

[fi3ework]

Description

Fixes #2598.

Browser filed spec is unmaintained, this issue of esbuild has made a detailed explaination. I think Vite can use the same strategy as esbuild to handle browser field. This PR also refers to test case of esbuild.

Additional context

Didn't mapping all test case from esbuild. I think its test case is a bit redundant.

---

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the Pull Request Guidelines and follow the Commit Convention.
• Check that there isn't already a PR that solves the problem the same way to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Provide a description in this PR that addresses what the PR is solving, or reference the issue that it solves (e.g. fixes #123).
• Ideally, include relevant tests that fail without this PR but pass with it.

[Timsonrobl]

Would it work with .mjs extensions or any other user specified extensions from ResolveOptions.extentions?
And AFAIU it could be even not a relative path but any other node-resolvable notation.

[patak-dev]

Thanks a lot for this PR @fi3ework and the detailed explanation and links! 💯
It helped a lot to understand what was the problem.

[Timsonrobl]

I think @ljharb is right, that ideally browser field should follow node resolution algorithm as close as possible. This would allow developers to substitute or set to ignore native modules like:

browser: {
  'util': false
}

instead of relying on contraptions like that.
Also node resolution algorithm is well known and established and I don't see good reason for deriving separate syntax from current implementations that vary so much.

[patak-dev]

@Timsonrobl as Evan Wallace said, he was following webpack as much as possible because it is what currently most projects were using. I think we could merge this PR that already fixes several issues at this point.

And we could later have another PR to improve this further if you or someone else would like to add more test cases and review the diffs with other tools.

[Shinigami92]

@fi3ework Could you merge main into your branch? (Or rebase)
That should fix your appveyor test I think

[fi3ework]

@fi3ework Could you merge main into your branch? (Or rebase)
That should fix your appveyor test I think

@Shinigami92 Done, appveyor passed. 😆