Add support for the "module" package.json field #2704

quantizor · 2017-01-26T08:42:22Z

This is used in modern es module codebases to designate the entry point for code that makes use of import/export instead of commonjs. Jest doesn't need to care about whether or not that destination code is actually an ES module, just that the path gets resolved 🙃

Closes #2702

jest-bot · 2017-01-26T09:10:04Z

	Warnings
⚠️	Please ensure that `@flow` is enabled on: examples/module-field/sample/correct.js and examples/module-field/sample/wrong.js

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

codecov-io · 2017-01-26T17:26:07Z

Codecov Report

Merging #2704 into master will decrease coverage by -0.08%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2704      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.51%   67.43%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         142      142              
  Lines        5094     5101       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         3439     3440       +1     
- Misses       1655     1661       +6

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/jest-config/src/validConfig.js	`100% <ø> (ø)`	✅
packages/jest-config/src/defaults.js	`100% <ø> (ø)`	✅
packages/jest-runtime/src/index.js	`85.02% <ø> (ø)`	✅
packages/jest-config/src/normalize.js	`85.51% <ø> (ø)`	✅
packages/jest-resolve/src/index.js	`0% <ø> (ø)`	✅
packages/jest-cli/src/watch.js	`74.13% <ø> (-1.76%)`	❌

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 204e46c...8f9514a. Read the comment docs.

quantizor · 2017-01-26T17:27:55Z

I added a test 🤷‍♂️

quantizor · 2017-01-30T15:10:01Z

@cpojer could you review? :)

thymikee

Could you also add a brief explanation in docs about this and why is it helpful?
I'd also ask for a little patience, because we're focusing on rolling out new release.

thymikee · 2017-02-02T08:51:07Z

packages/jest-resolve/src/index.js

        path,
        {
          basedir: options.basedir,
          extensions: options.extensions,
          moduleDirectory: options.moduleDirectory,
+          packageFilter: options.module ? packageJson => {


Nit, Jest uses this style:

condition ? truth : false

quantizor · 2017-02-02T19:59:34Z

@thymikee All set. I'd love to get this in the next release if possible... it helps greatly when working on lerna codebases so you don't have to prebuild every package before running tests on packages with deps on other packages.

quantizor · 2017-02-09T04:34:03Z

Rebased

cpojer · 2017-02-10T11:10:38Z

Hey @yaycmyk. Thanks for your PR. Can you go into more detail where this is used and how this is a standard?

We are planning on releasing Jest 19 next week but I'm afraid if you want to get this in, I'd ask you to make a breaking change to Jest to make sure we aren't adding more options. I would be happy to support this feature and the browser resolution feature if they are merged into one config, like this:

packageResolution: ['module', 'browser']

This would prefer the "module" field over the "browser" field or the default. This will also enable things like react-native support, this way:

packageResolution: ['react-native', 'module']

What do you think?

quantizor · 2017-02-10T14:51:54Z

~~Oh I'm totally into that, sure. I'll make that change by Sunday.~~ See followup comment.

quantizor · 2017-02-10T15:44:16Z

@cpojer one wrinkle here: browser is actually a different data structure. "main" and "module" are a single file path, whereas browser is an object of paths/module names pointing to other paths.

For example:

{
  "browser": {
    "build/foo.js": "build/foo.umd.js"
  },
  "main": "build/foo.js",
  "module": "foo.js"
}

I suppose I could write a resolver that handles both cases, but it would require more extensive changes.

I tested the regex thoroughly, so I think it's just a matter of usage. Regex.test() has some weird semantics if its run over the same string twice... so switched to match() instead.

This is used in modern es module codebases to designate the entry point for code that makes use of import/export instead of commonjs.

It's used by a lot more bundlers than Browserify, so I removed that specification.

quantizor · 2017-03-18T17:28:41Z

This PR has been largely ignored, so I'm just going to close it.

SimenB · 2017-10-21T15:32:23Z

@probablyup if you're still up for it, I'd love to have this land. Mind reopening and rebasing?

GioSensation · 2018-01-30T13:50:58Z

@probablyup Any update on this? Will you reopen the PR?

quantizor · 2018-01-30T14:36:32Z

I don’t have time to work on this, sorry.

…

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:51 AM Emanuele Feliziani ***@***.***> wrote: @probablyup <https://github.com/probablyup> Any update on this? Will you reopen the PR? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2704 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAiy1s5GjL_FjDXWhcAXxKQwlDjN0rfcks5tPx5KgaJpZM4LuZ15> .

SimenB · 2018-02-07T09:59:09Z

For those following along: #5485

github-actions · 2021-05-12T21:06:57Z

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed ✔️ label Jan 26, 2017

quantizor mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2017

"Danger" bot doesn't need to ask for strict mode for ES Modules #2708

Closed

quantizor force-pushed the module-field branch from 1aa019a to 0b85995 Compare January 30, 2017 14:21

thymikee reviewed Feb 2, 2017

View reviewed changes

quantizor force-pushed the module-field branch from c3424c0 to d5356c2 Compare February 2, 2017 19:56

quantizor force-pushed the module-field branch from 9176528 to 8f9514a Compare February 9, 2017 04:28

This was referenced Feb 20, 2017

Build a high-performance version of resolve #2925

Closed

Slight dangerfile tweak #3001

Merged

Evan Scott added 4 commits February 25, 2017 12:06

Slight dangerfile tweak

2978024

I tested the regex thoroughly, so I think it's just a matter of usage. Regex.test() has some weird semantics if its run over the same string twice... so switched to match() instead.

Add support for the "module" package.json field

179855b

This is used in modern es module codebases to designate the entry point for code that makes use of import/export instead of commonjs.

Add docs for the "module" package.json field

b3fb67a

Revision to the "browser" field doc

66adad4

It's used by a lot more bundlers than Browserify, so I removed that specification.

quantizor force-pushed the module-field branch from 8f9514a to 66adad4 Compare February 25, 2017 17:08

quantizor closed this Mar 18, 2017

TehShrike mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2017

Support the "module" package.json field #2702

Closed

SimenB mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2018

Allow module field #5460

Closed

PepijnSenders mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2018

Add support for the "module" package.json field #5485

Closed

quantizor deleted the module-field branch February 8, 2018 01:19

tomwayson mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2018

Having trouble importing deepmerge with Webpack TehShrike/deepmerge#87

Closed

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 12, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add support for the "module" package.json field #2704

Add support for the "module" package.json field #2704

quantizor commented Jan 26, 2017

jest-bot commented Jan 26, 2017 •

edited

codecov-io commented Jan 26, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Jan 26, 2017

quantizor commented Jan 30, 2017

thymikee left a comment

thymikee Feb 2, 2017

quantizor commented Feb 2, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Feb 9, 2017

cpojer commented Feb 10, 2017

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Mar 18, 2017

SimenB commented Oct 21, 2017 •

edited

GioSensation commented Jan 30, 2018

quantizor commented Jan 30, 2018 via email

SimenB commented Feb 7, 2018

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2021

Add support for the "module" package.json field #2704

Add support for the "module" package.json field #2704

Conversation

quantizor commented Jan 26, 2017

jest-bot commented Jan 26, 2017 • edited

codecov-io commented Jan 26, 2017 • edited

Codecov Report

quantizor commented Jan 26, 2017

quantizor commented Jan 30, 2017

thymikee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thymikee Feb 2, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

quantizor commented Feb 2, 2017 • edited

quantizor commented Feb 9, 2017

cpojer commented Feb 10, 2017

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 • edited

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 • edited

quantizor commented Mar 18, 2017

SimenB commented Oct 21, 2017 • edited

GioSensation commented Jan 30, 2018

quantizor commented Jan 30, 2018 via email

SimenB commented Feb 7, 2018

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2021

jest-bot commented Jan 26, 2017 •

edited

codecov-io commented Jan 26, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Feb 2, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

quantizor commented Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

SimenB commented Oct 21, 2017 •

edited