File extension precedence

[jhnns]

When a sass-file imports a file without extension and there are two files with the same name, which extension takes precedence? It looks like the scss always takes precedence, but I would have expected that the file with same extension as the importing file is preferred. Is this behavior specified?

Sorry, if this has been previously discussed. I could not find it in the issue search.

[saper]

There is a discussion what the import identifier actually means at #1160. I think if it matches the existing file name, it should be used first, otherwise it would be pretty strange.

[jhnns]

Ok thank you. So, this behavior is not actually intended...

[xzyfer]

I believe this behaviour is a hold over from before we supported the .sass syntax.

[mgreter]

The order for searched extensions is ".scss", ".sass", ".css", ruby sass IMO has ".sass", ".scss" (css has to be enabled by some options I guess). Lookup order goes like this:

• $file
• _$file
• _$file.$exts
• $file.$exts

Latest ruby sass (at least 3.4.15) will give an error if it finds multiple files that could be imported:

Error: It's not clear which file to import for '@import "imp"'.
       Candidates:
         imp.sass
         imp.scss
       Please delete or rename all but one of these files.
        on line 1 of foo.sass

[xzyfer]

@mgreter I believe the issue is that our search order differs from Ruby Sass. Seems like a legitimate issue to me.

css has to be enabled by some options I guess

Ruby Sass does not support css imports and IMO this is a mistake we made.

[mgreter]

#1341

[xzyfer]

I don't see what #1341 has to do with the look up order for imports?

If foo.sass and foo.scss exist the cwd then we should match the import resolution behaviour of Ruby Sass.

[mgreter]

Other than the extension order we do match the ruby behavior exactly AFAIK!?
And latest ruby sass gives an error in that case (and the order is visible in that error) ...
To put it clear, ruby sass prefers sass even if original file is scss (from my testings)!

[xzyfer]

Other than the extension precedence

But that's what this issue is about.
Why wouldn't we match this behaviour? It seems inconsequential from a code point of view.

Admittedly it's an edge case, but this could affect code portability between the two engines.

[mgreter]

If we change to .sass beeing the default extension, we probably should also default to sass syntax for unknown extensions. That's all ...