chore(docs): better example in README. #2
Conversation
1. Without `node_modules` lots of requires will fail (assuming user is using npm for some or most of the modules). 2. There are npm modules that don't ignore and include `bower.json` file, so the loader would use the bower.json incorrectly for certain npm modules. 3. Give priority to `browser` field before `main`.
README.md
Outdated
| descriptionFiles: ['bower.json', 'package.json'], | ||
| mainFields: ['main', 'browser'] | ||
| modules: ['bower_components', 'node_modules'], | ||
| descriptionFiles: ['.bower.json', 'package.json'], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you mean 'bower.json' here. See the dot prefix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it's really .bower.json :) .bower.json is the metadata file added by Bower when a bower component is installed. Therefore, it does not exist on installed npm packages. This is also the suggested descriptor as seen here.
Some (isomorphic) npm packages do not npmignore bower.json and it's included in the installed package. Thus, webpack finds the node_module, but uses the bower.json file descriptor. Same applies for bower components that include the package.json. For this, it cannot be:
modules: ['bower_components', 'node_modules'],
descriptionFiles: ['package.json', 'bower.json']
// will use bower_components/**/package.json if available
or
modules: ['node_modules', 'bower_components'],
descriptionFiles: ['bower.json', 'package.json']
// will use node_modules/**/bower.json if available
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well it looks like .bower.json is auto generated once package is installed. I have tested with .bower.json descriptor and it starts breaking files resolving for me. The main reason is even bower.json does not exist .bower.json is being generated without any usefull information. For example ded/script.js package is being installed through bower but has only package.json , if I do include .bower.json as a file descriptor it's being resolved incorrectly because .bower.json file always exists.
I would suggest to stick with bower.json for now, atleast until there is a way to skip description file, if "main" attribute is not being found in it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, that does not sound right... If you're using the package.json descriptor, then I'd suggest using the npm package instead (https://www.npmjs.com/package/scriptjs). To register in Bower it should've had a bower.json at the root as mentioned in their docs. Somehow they made it, but it does not sound it's correctly configured, as a Bower component must always have the bower.json manifest. In fact you don't need package.json for a bower-only component. .bower.json extends the manifest, the same way npm extends the package.json with installation information. The fact that it only exists for installed packages is the reason it's preferred. Do you have more dependencies like that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I don't really like the way webpack handles it now as well. I never wrote any webpack plugin or used enhance-resolve, but I can have a look. Can you keep the PR open in the meantime? It may help others with the same problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can merge, just I would prefer to keep bower.json without a dot for a while if you don't mind, as it works in most cases now.
enhanced-resolve is being exclusively used now as a resolve engine for webpack 2.x.
p.s. a bit unrelated but see the issue . If you could figure out the way on how or it's possible to resolve multiple files per one webpack require, it would be nice to have aswell. It's more of the bower thing, as it tends to include css files in the main attribute aswell, so we wouldn't need to load them separately (e.g. select2, bootstrap, etc..) .
Please share your thoughts or ideas if you are able to find anything. :-)
Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I will.
The problem of keeping bower.json is the same. Some libraries (e.g. debug) add bower.json to the node_modules/debug folder (in other words, don't ignore it). However, because it was installed via npm and not bower, the main file defined in the bower.json (dist/debug.js) does not exist because dist files are ignored. Package.json does have a browser field pointing to a valid file, which is what would allow to use the npm module in the browser, but the loader doesn't even get there, because it uses the bower descriptor. If this makes sense.
I will open a PR for debug to ignore bower.json anyway :)
Cheers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But does it matter for us in this case if bower.json or package.json descriptor file will be used, even if it was installed through NPM. In both cases it should resolve to ./src/browser.js file anyway.
e.g. bower.json file content once package is being installed through npm
{
"name": "visionmedia-debug",
"main": "./src/browser.js",
"homepage": "https://github.com/visionmedia/debug",
"authors": [
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's actually fixed in the latest version (not the most commonly used though). Still, I'd like to use package.json for node_modules, bower.json for bower_components, and webpack doesn't make it easy 😬
|
Hi @joaovieira , thank you for PR! . Everything looks fine, just see my comment. |
node_moduleslots of requires will fail (assuming user is using npm for some or most of the modules).bower.jsonfile, so the loader would use the bower.json incorrectly for certain npm modules.browserfield beforemain.