feat: add list of known js source extensions to config #3828
Conversation
Shinigami92
added
the
p2-nice-to-have
| if (!config.knownJsSrcExtensions) { | ||
| config.knownJsSrcExtensions = [...DEFAULT_KNOWN_JS_SRC_EXTENSIONS] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can wait until we discuss this with Evan, but I think it is better if this works like assetsInclude. So the user will give us extra extensions and they are added to the ones supported by default by vite.
| @@ -416,6 +447,7 @@ export async function resolveConfig( | |||
| assetsInclude(file: string) { | |||
| return DEFAULT_ASSETS_RE.test(file) || assetsFilter(file) | |||
| }, | |||
| knownJsSrcExtensions: resolvedKnownJsSrcExtensions, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed a bit about this in Discord. IMO we could also use the same scheme utilized by assetsInclude here. In the ResolvedConfig, we will have a resolved.isJsRequest(path) function that plugins can then use. This is something else to discuss with Evan, if we go here, we may want to have all these helpers in resolve.utils.isJsRequest, but I am not sure if it is really needed and the flat structure is enough here. @antfu what do you think?
|
Commenting for reference, as this was already discussed in Discord. We may be able to avoid the need for defining these known imports altogether, so for the moment is better to hold on with exposing a new config option here. We can continue to accept new known types if that helps the ecosystem in the meanwhile. @dominikg I'll make this one a draft for the time being. |
@patak-dev do you happen to remember how it was that we might be able to avoid defining these known imports? Is there any update on that or whether we should move forward with this PR? I see you referred to this PR positively in a recent comment, so I'm wondering if there might be a path forward for it if it were rebased? |
|
Hello! I am finding hard to make vite to pre-process |
Description
implementation of #3219 with config option at runtime as requested in #3219 (comment)
Separate PR to be able to compare the two and avoid having to rebase/force-push
I don't really like how the array is passed through several function calls to reach the util, but without some structural changes this is the least invasive i could manage.
Additional context
What is the purpose of this pull request?
Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following
fixes #123).