-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
node --loader
treats entrypoint as ESM when should be loaded as CJS
#33226
Comments
cc @nodejs/modules-active-members |
This sounds like a resolver bug to me in that extensionless files not inside of "type": "module" with no parent (is the Node.js main) should always be treated as CommonJS for resolver consistency. @GeoffreyBooth this was likely disabled as a feature in your previous PR. |
Note the workaround is to write a loader that ensures the main is a CommonJS module. The difficulty here is the I'd be open to |
It's any unknown extension, not just extensionless files. Continuing from the steps above: ➜ mv entrypoint entrypoint.foo
➜ node --loader ./hooks.mjs ./entrypoint.foo
(node:97802) ExperimentalWarning: --experimental-loader is an experimental feature. This feature could change at any time
(Use `node --trace-warnings ...` to show where the warning was created)
internal/modules/run_main.js:54
internalBinding('errors').triggerUncaughtException(
^
TypeError [ERR_UNKNOWN_FILE_EXTENSION]: Unknown file extension ".foo" for /private/tmp/test/empty-dir/entrypoint.foo
at Loader.defaultGetFormat [as _getFormat] (internal/modules/esm/get_format.js:65:15)
at Loader.getFormat (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:113:42)
at Loader.getModuleJob (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:244:31)
at async Loader.import (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:178:17) {
code: 'ERR_UNKNOWN_FILE_EXTENSION'
} It seems that when loaders are enabled at all, the check for known/ESM-supported file extensions is run on the main entry point, regardless of format. |
How is the main entrypoint intended to be resolved: via the CommonJS resolver or via the ESM resolver? If an ESM file imports another file, then I know the ESM resolver is invoked. For But I don't know the rules governing which resolver is used for the entrypoint. How do I control the choice of resolver for Am I supposed to be able to do |
@cspotcode this function determines whether to use the ES module loader or CommonJS loader on startup - https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/lib/internal/modules/run_main.js#L23. Whenever you use the Making the main an exception in the CommonJS case (no type: module) seems like the appropriate fix for this bug. |
@guybedford thanks for explaining. It would be nice to get this added to the docs. Otherwise, I think the safe assumption is that registering a custom loader is independent of node's CJS / ESM resolver selection. https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v14.x/docs/api/esm.html#esm_experimental_loaders
|
Is this on the roadmap to be fixed? I see that discussion on the linked pull request appears to have stopped last July. Is there anything that can be updated about the minimal reproduction above to help clarify the issue? |
@cspotcode is the workaround desribed in #33226 (comment) not enough for your needs here? The problem is that if Node.js was all ESM and we deprecated CommonJS, |
That means it is still a bug? That's what seems unclear: is it still considered a bug in node's behavior, or is it a case of node's docs needing an update? I understand that loader hooks are still experimental and so bugs are to be expected. |
@cspotcode it's actually not really a bug - rather it is an inconsistency in the design. So the solution to the problem entirely depends on the outcome of other discussions:
If I were in your position I'd just write a getFormat function that makes it work as per (2). If you care about the modules system design, then trying to make architectural progress on the problem would be great too. Personally I would still prefer (1) as the ideal solution, with an |
Actually, thinking about this some more - one approach might be to create an I think that could be a consistent "bug fix" here. |
Yes, I believe that is the appropriate bugfix. Thanks for the information. Here's my situation: Some node packages are written with a bin entrypoint that does not have a file extension. This means those packages mysteriously fail to launch in the presence of I should advise the maintainers of these packages that their extensionless bin entrypoints are currently incompatible with the If a loader hook were to implement a workaround that resolves extensionless entrypoints as CommonJS, this would potentially make that loader incompatible with future versions of node, or make it incompatible with other loaders it should compose with. Better to avoid any workarounds and continue deferring those decisions to node's default ESM resolver. Loader hooks are experimental so there's always possibility of future incompatiblity, but I would still like to minimize the chances. |
Ok you have me in agreement this is a bug and that is the fix then :) If you feel like becoming a Node.js contributor to this that would be amazing. I will note this as well though for myself if I find any bandwidth. |
@guybedford any news on this one here? I know |
I'm having the opposite issue. I use |
There is potentially a workaround: // my-loader.mjs
import path from 'path';
export async function load(resolvedUrl, context, defaultLoad) {
const url = new URL(resolvedUrl);
const ext = path.extname(url.pathname);
const parentDir = path
.dirname(url.pathname)
.split(path.sep)
.at(-1);
if (!ext && parentDir === 'bin') return defaultLoad(resolvedUrl, {
...context,
format: 'commonjs',
});
return defaultLoad(resolvedUrl, context);
} CommonJS can handle binaries. I just tried this with Mocha, and it worked. I'm not sure if commonjs vs esm matters for binaries. |
This PR contains the following updates: | Package | Type | Update | Change | |---|---|---|---| | [ts-node](https://typestrong.org/ts-node) ([source](https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node)) | devDependencies | minor | [`10.5.0` -> `10.6.0`](https://renovatebot.com/diffs/npm/ts-node/10.5.0/10.6.0) | --- ### Release Notes <details> <summary>TypeStrong/ts-node</summary> ### [`v10.6.0`](https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node/releases/v10.6.0) [Compare Source](TypeStrong/ts-node@v10.5.0...v10.6.0) Questions about this release? Ask in the official discussion thread: [#​1666](TypeStrong/ts-node#1666) **Added** - Adds workaround for extensionless entrypoints with ESM loader ([#​1649](TypeStrong/ts-node#1649), [#​1654](TypeStrong/ts-node#1654)) - You can now combine tools such as `mocha` with `--loader ts-node/esm`, where previously node would throw `[ERR_UNKNOWN_FILE_EXTENSION]` - node has a bug where combining `--loader` with an extensionless entrypoint causes this error [nodejs/node#​33226](nodejs/node#33226) - Some tools, for example `mocha`, have an extensionless entrypoint. ([source](https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/blob/547ffd73535088322579d3d2026432112eae3d4b/package.json#L37), [source](https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/blob/547ffd73535088322579d3d2026432112eae3d4b/bin/mocha)) - Combining `NODE_OPTIONS=--loader ts-node/esm` with these tools causes this error. [mochajs/mocha#​4645](mochajs/mocha#4645) - node intends to fix this bug in a future release: [nodejs/node#​41711](nodejs/node#41711) - In the interim, we have implemented a workaround in ts-node. - Adds support for target "ES2022" in `moduleTypes` overrides ([#​1650](TypeStrong/ts-node#1650)) **Fixed** - Fixed bug where `--swc` and other third-party transpilers did not respect `moduleTypes` overrides ([#​1651](TypeStrong/ts-node#1651), [#​1652](TypeStrong/ts-node#1652), [#​1660](TypeStrong/ts-node#1660)) - Fixed bug where node flags were not preserved correctly in `process.execArgv` ([#​1657](TypeStrong/ts-node#1657), [#​1658](TypeStrong/ts-node#1658)) - This affected `child_process.fork()`, since it uses `process.execArgv` to create a similar child runtime. - With this fix, `child_process.fork()` will preserve both node flags and `ts-node` hooks. - Fixed compatibility TypeScript 4.7's API changes ([#​1647](TypeStrong/ts-node#1647), [#​1648](TypeStrong/ts-node#1648)) https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node/milestone/9 </details> --- ### Configuration 📅 **Schedule**: At any time (no schedule defined). 🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied. ♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox. 🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again. --- - [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, click this checkbox. --- This PR has been generated by [Renovate Bot](https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate). Co-authored-by: cabr2-bot <cabr2.help@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Calciumdibromid/CaBr2/pulls/1195 Reviewed-by: Epsilon_02 <epsilon_02@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-authored-by: Calciumdibromid Bot <cabr2_bot@noreply.codeberg.org> Co-committed-by: Calciumdibromid Bot <cabr2_bot@noreply.codeberg.org>
The way it's currently working:
By default, the ESM loader would reject any unknown extension, hence the error message when loading an extensionless file. There are a few issues with the current approach:
I think we'd need to at least improve the docs around those issues, and if there's a way to fix them without breaking the ecosystem, that's even better. Footnotes
|
What if the resolved entrypoint has a .json or .node extension? |
This seems to have been fixed by #49869, the provided reproduction doesn't throw anymore. |
We also might be removing |
What steps will reproduce the bug?
How often does it reproduce? Is there a required condition?
Always
What is the expected behavior?
./entrypoint
is executed as a CommonJS module whether or not--loader
is passed.What do you see instead?
When --loader is passed, node always tries to load entrypoint scripts as ESM, ignoring that
package.json
wants the file to be treated as CJS. This does not happen when --loader is omitted, suggesting that this behavior is a bug.Additional information
#33223
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: