Core: Rename generated-stories-entry to cjs extension so require works

[jpzwarte]

Possible fix for #14877.

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI ran the following commands for commit 07ca419. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

---

✅ Successfully ran 1 target

• nx run-many --target=prepare --all --parallel --max-parallel=15

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[tmeasday]

@jpzwarte I am surprised you don't need to make the same adjustment to the xxx-generated-config-entry.js also? (lines 128 & 136 above?).

[jpzwarte]

@tmeasday I've added them, but afaics they're not really necessary somehow.

[tmeasday]

LGTM. I guess we may as well use .cjs everywhere we are going to compiling templates to require() code.

[shilman]

@tmeasday this seems to break angular somehow per the e2e tests

[tmeasday]

Ok, so the reason this breaks is that the virtualModuleEntry.template.js is not compiled to CJS (in the dist/cjs directory 😕 ), because of these line (I think?)

storybook/.babelrc.js

Lines 139 to 156 in 8ea0e35

	{
	test: ['**/virtualModuleEntry.template.js'],
	presets: [
	[
	'@babel/preset-env',
	{
	shippedProposals: true,
	useBuiltIns: 'usage',
	targets: {
	node: '10',
	},
	corejs: '3',
	modules: false,
	},
	],
	],
	},
	],

@shilman git blame isn't helping me much here. Do you recall why this is here (seems a bit weird, but I don't particularly want to change it). I guess we have 3 options:

1. Actually compile the virtualModuleEntry.template.js file to CJS in the dist/cjs folder. This seems like the logical thing to do but I guess maybe it is like this for a reason.

2. Also not compile virtualModuleStory.template.js to CJS in dist/cjs. This would be consistent with the other file, and possibly fix the original problem 🤷

3. Just use .js for the first and .cjs for the second, with a comment explaining why.

I would lean towards 3 for reasons of caution I guess.

@jpzwarte I guess this is why you didn't originally need to change the module file.

[shilman]

@tmeasday I think this is a question for @ndelangen

[tmeasday]

@ndelangen can I get you take a quick look at my comment above? If it doesn't ring any bells, we'll just take my option 3 and be done with it. Sorry for the delays @jpzwarte!

[ndelangen]

Let's do option 3, and revisit this for 7.0?

[tmeasday]

@jpzwarte any appetite for reverting what I asked you to do and adding a comment explaining why? 🙏

[shilman]

LGTM! Thanks @jpzwarte @tmeasday 🚀

[jpzwarte]

Thanks for finishing this @shilman & @tmeasday ! Too busy to do it myself :/

[tmeasday]

Totally understand @jpzwarte, no problem at all!