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: package exports dot main support #29494

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

guybedford
Copy link
Contributor

This reintroduces the dot main in exports as discussed in the previous Node.js modules meeting.

The implementation includes both CommonJS and ES module resolution with the associated documentation and resolver specification changes.

In addition to the dot main, "exports" as a string or direct fallback array is supported as well.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. label Sep 8, 2019
@guybedford
Copy link
Contributor Author

//cc @nodejs/modules-active-members

doc/api/esm.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
doc/api/esm.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
guybedford and others added 3 commits September 8, 2019 15:29
Co-Authored-By: Geoffrey Booth <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Geoffrey Booth <[email protected]>
@benjamingr
Copy link
Member

Random governance question - who is supposed to approve these changes? Modules team members or core collaborators?

Has the TSC chartered the module team to make changes to this area of the code on its own or something similar?

(I am asking because I see two approvals by non-collaborator members and I am a bit confused if those LGTMs are "I agree with this change and it can land" "I agree with this change" or "This is what the team said" and if regular collaborators are expected to review those or not)

@devsnek
Copy link
Member

devsnek commented Sep 8, 2019

cc @MylesBorins ^

@guybedford
Copy link
Contributor Author

@benjamingr the standard Node.js core approval process applies since the modules group is not chartered. We typically seek consensus from the modules group before landing non-patch changes to the module system though.

@benjamingr
Copy link
Member

Thanks for explaining @guybedford!

Copy link
Contributor

@jkrems jkrems left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM in general but I'd prefer if we can remove the duplication between the code for . and other exports keys.

target =
exports_obj->Get(env->context(), dot_string).ToLocalChecked();
}
if (target->IsString()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a way to reuse the existing logic for string/array in PackageExportsResolve?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@guybedford guybedford Sep 9, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That would be better, it's just a refactoring I haven't had the time for. Would you be ok with moving that to a follow-up?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Works for me.

@guybedford
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's worth noting here, that:

{
  "exports": "./esm-main.js"
}

is supported by this PR, but:

{
  "exports": "esm-main.js"
}

would not be supported and would throw an error that exports must start with ./.

This is based on various long-standing discussions, but still worth noting in how it deviates from "main".

Copy link
Contributor

@MylesBorins MylesBorins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@guybedford guybedford added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Sep 16, 2019
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@jkrems
Copy link
Contributor

jkrems commented Sep 16, 2019

🍏

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Sep 18, 2019

Landed in 3f3ad38

@Trott Trott closed this Sep 18, 2019
Trott pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2019
This reintroduces the dot main in exports as discussed in the previous
Node.js modules meeting.

The implementation includes both CommonJS and ES module resolution with
the associated documentation and resolver specification changes.

In addition to the dot main, "exports" as a string or direct fallback
array is supported as well.

Co-Authored-By: Geoffrey Booth <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #29494
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2019
This reintroduces the dot main in exports as discussed in the previous
Node.js modules meeting.

The implementation includes both CommonJS and ES module resolution with
the associated documentation and resolver specification changes.

In addition to the dot main, "exports" as a string or direct fallback
array is supported as well.

Co-Authored-By: Geoffrey Booth <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #29494
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]>
@BridgeAR BridgeAR mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2019
BridgeAR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2019
This reintroduces the dot main in exports as discussed in the previous
Node.js modules meeting.

The implementation includes both CommonJS and ES module resolution with
the associated documentation and resolver specification changes.

In addition to the dot main, "exports" as a string or direct fallback
array is supported as well.

Co-Authored-By: Geoffrey Booth <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #29494
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants