fix(browser): don't exclude node builtins from optimization

[sheremet-va]

Description

Fixes #4535
Fixes #4892

Possibly fixes #5046

Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. If the feature is substantial or introduces breaking changes without a discussion, PR might be closed.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.
• Please, don't make changes to pnpm-lock.yaml unless you introduce a new test example.

Tests

• Run the tests with pnpm test:ci.

Documentation

• If you introduce new functionality, document it. You can run documentation with pnpm run docs command.

Changesets

• Changes in changelog are generated from PR name. Please, make sure that it explains your changes in an understandable manner. Please, prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, perf:, docs:, or chore:.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for fastidious-cascaron-4ded94 canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1f3f01c
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fastidious-cascaron-4ded94/deploys/65b96bceb963010008fef51e

[sheremet-va]

We can just bundle loupe to be honest, but then we should probably bundle chai, but I don't see that happening 🤷🏻

[hi-ogawa]

Just in case, can you clarify the issues with bundling chai?
I guess the obvious one is that it affects vitest's package size. Another one I thought about is that a user code relying on import "chai" would end up with different instance of chai from what Vitest sees internally.
Do you have anything else in mind?

[sheremet-va]

@hi-ogawa what do you think? We don't want Vite to bundle it because it adds an import from util as you pointed out in one of your comments. If we don't bundle patched loupe, then this is the only way I found 🤷🏻

[hi-ogawa]

Oh, I wasn't aware that node builtins were in optimizeDeps.exclude. So, removing that would be necessary for people using node builtin polyfill explicitly, but what was the reason it has been added previously?

From this comment #4892 (comment), I thought we could simply add vitest > @vitest/utils > loupe to optimizeDeps.include. But, after adding this, I'm seeing Vite's warning locally, so this approach might still have other issues.

Module "util" has been externalized for browser compatibility. Cannot access "util.inspect" in client code. See https://vitejs.dev/guide/troubleshooting.html#module-externalized-for-browser-compatibility for more details.

---

We don't want Vite to bundle it because it adds an import from util as you pointed out in one of your comments.

What do you mean by it adds util?

[sheremet-va]

So, removing that would be necessary for people using node builtin polyfill explicitly, but what was the reason it has been added previously?

We probably forgot to remove it when we provided polyfills ourselves.

What do you mean by it adds util?

It transforms require('util') into import from 'util'. Instead, it should keep it as is.