chore: add files field for each package

[daydayhappychao]

• I have read the contribution documentation for this project.
• I agree to follow the code of conduct that this project follows, as appropriate.
• The changes are appropriately documented (if applicable).
• The changes have sufficient test coverage (if applicable).
• The testsuite passes successfully on my local machine (if applicable).

Summarize your changes:

There used to be a logic to sync .npmignore into the packages.

forge/tools/link-ts.ts

Line 19 in 380762e

await fs.copy(path.resolve(BASE_DIR, '.npmignore'), path.resolve(dir, '.npmignore'));

I restored it and updated the content of .npmignore.

Please check if the content of .npmignore is reasonable. I'm not sure if the README.md should be excluded from packages.

[erickzhao]

Thank you for this @daydayhappychao!!! I'll give this a review soon as well.

[dsanders11]

Hi @daydayhappychao, thanks for the PR!

These days we generally prefer using "files" in package.json over .npmignore, and it's less likely to go stale. While this repo does have a .npmignore, it's quite old and as you found not being used since the top-level package.json isn't published and the other packages weren't using it.

Could this PR be refactored to add "files" to each package.json instead? Most of them will only need to include dist. Apologies for requesting extra work, but I think that solution would be better long-term.

[daydayhappychao]

Hi @daydayhappychao, thanks for the PR!

These days we generally prefer using "files" in package.json over .npmignore, and it's less likely to go stale. While this repo does have a .npmignore, it's quite old and as you found not being used since the top-level package.json isn't published and the other packages weren't using it.

Could this PR be refactored to add "files" to each package.json instead? Most of them will only need to include dist. Apologies for requesting extra work, but I think that solution would be better long-term.

Great guide! I'll get this done soon. I agree that the files field is a more secure and reliable option.

[daydayhappychao]

@erickzhao @BlackHole1 @dsanders11 Please review carefully, I feel like it's dangerous to get it wrong, even though I've double-checked.

[dsanders11]

The files field changes LGTM so far, thanks for making the change. I've updated the PR title to match.

I believe we also need to include "src" for every package, sorry about that. @BlackHole1 pointed that out in an earlier comment but I forgot - there are some source maps in dist/ which refer back to the source files in src/ so we need to publish src/ as well.

[daydayhappychao]

The files field changes LGTM so far, thanks for making the change. I've updated the PR title to match.

I believe we also need to include "src" for every package, sorry about that. @BlackHole1 pointed that out in an earlier comment but I forgot - there are some source maps in dist/ which refer back to the source files in src/ so we need to publish src/ as well.

Good idea. Pushing src/ into package is probably a better approach than building with inlineSource option.

It was a useful experience!

[dsanders11]

Looks good, thanks @daydayhappychao!