Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Module Federation shared deep dependency resolved incorrectly #15971

Open
tzachbon opened this issue Jun 22, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

Module Federation shared deep dependency resolved incorrectly #15971

tzachbon opened this issue Jun 22, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@tzachbon
Copy link

tzachbon commented Jun 22, 2022

Bug report

What is the current behavior?

When using Module Federation, sharing a dependency and your other dependencies are using it too but in different versions, it won't respect semver matching and use the same version for everything.
For example, even when it is explicitly defined to be shared with ^8.3.2 in the top-level, it matches the 3.4.0 version that another deep dependency consumes.

3.4.0 does not satisfy constraint ^8.3.2

If the current behavior is a bug, please provide the steps to reproduce.

Repo that reproduces the issue - https://github.com/tzachbon/mf-shared-deep-dependency

This example tries to reproduce the problem when sharing a dependency that exists in multiple versions across the node modules but resolves the request incorrectly.

In this example repo, I use uuid package.

└─┬ @startup-code/app1@0.0.0 -> ./app1
  ├─┬ lib@1.0.0 -> ./lib
  │ └── uuid@3.4.0
  ├── uuid@8.3.2
  └─┬ webpack-dev-server@4.8.1
    └─┬ sockjs@0.3.24
      └── uuid@8.3.2 deduped

This graph shows that the root uuid is 8.3.2 and the version under lib is 3.4.0.

lib uses the v3 method from uuid.
This method exists only in version 8.3.2.

By default, if we build this project, serve it and click on new uuid, everything crashes as expected:
console

But when we use Module Federation and share this package from app1 like this:

[
      new ModuleFederationPlugin({
      name: 'app1',
      shared: {
        lib: deps['lib'],
        uuid: deps['uuid'], // <-- resolve to ^8.3.2
        react: { singleton: true, requiredVersion: deps.react },
        'react-dom': { singleton: true, requiredVersion: deps['react-dom'] },
      },
    })
]

We can see that the runtime understands the difference between the packages:
runtime

But when we click on new uuid which crashed our app, it works (not the desired behavior)...
console

When we look inside the index file, we can see the moduleToHandlerMapping resolve it incorrectly:
moduleToHandlerMapping

And when we remove the uuid entry from the shared section in ModuleFederationPlugin we can see that the app behaves as expected:
console

For some reason, even when it is explicitly defined to be shared with ^8.3.2, it matches the 3.4.0 version that lib consumes.

What is the expected behavior?

I would expect that each dependency would get the correct package resolution according to the node resolution algorithm.
In our example -

  • top level (App) - 8.3.2
  • lib - 3.4.0

Other relevant information:
webpack version: 5.72.1
Node.js version: v16.15.0
NPM version: 8.5.5
Operating System: MacOS Monterey 12.4

Also asked in the Module Federation examples repo -
module-federation/module-federation-examples#2033

@itainoam
Copy link

Major issue for me as well.

@sokra
Copy link
Member

sokra commented Jul 1, 2022

This configuration:

shared: {
  uuid: "^8.3.2",
  // or the equivalent:
  uuid: { requiredVersion: "^8.3.2" },
}

will force the version to be ^8.3.2.
But it's not recommended to do that. You should prefer to let webpack automatically infer the requiredVersion from the nearest package.json (from import location).

shared: ["uuid"],
// or the equivalent:
shared: {
  uuid: {},
}

Note you can also mix array and object:

shared: [
  "lib",
  "uuid",
  {
    react: { singleton: true },
    'react-dom': { singleton: true },
  }
],

or use that:

shared: [
  lib: {},
  uuid: {},
  react: { singleton: true },
  'react-dom': { singleton: true },
},

@nerisa
Copy link

nerisa commented Nov 16, 2022

I have similar issue with my application. However if I follow @sokra 's suggestion to not provide the requiredVersion to the shared libs, I encounter the issue reported here:
#13457

@vikdet
Copy link

vikdet commented Jun 14, 2024

I have the same issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants