Replace [chunkhash] with [contenthash]

[FadySamirSadek]

Replaced [chunkhash] with [contenthash] in code examples and defined [contenthash]

[FadySamirSadek]

#2085 #2096

[alexander-akait]

@FadySamirSadek looks good, need check other places on [chunkhash] to avoid misleading

[FadySamirSadek]

@evilebottnawi Will compile a list of all places that mention [chunkhash] and work on them. Thank you 👍

[montogeek]

Thanks!

[naruaway]

Hi, it seems like still https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output/ recommends the use of chunkhash rather than contenthash.
If we should always use contenthash rather than chunkhash, should we also update this page?

[EugeneHlushko]

@naruaway i have looked at the page and all references there look valid, which one exactly did you mean?

[naruaway]

@EugeneHlushko In that page, contenthash is almost only mentioned in the sentence below.
But now contenthash is not only meant for ExtractTextWebpackPlugin use case, right?

When using the ExtractTextWebpackPlugin, use [contenthash] to obtain a hash of the extracted file (neither [hash] nor [chunkhash] work).

[EugeneHlushko]

The "note" says that when using ExtractTextWebpackPlugin, you shouldn't use other hash placeholders other than contenthash. So that is still the case. I suggest you add contenthash to the table here and that would be it:

What do you think @naruaway

[naruaway]

Yes, should we even replace [chunkhash] with [contenthash] in that table?
The title of this PR is "Replace [chunkhash] with [contenthash]".
Does [chunkhash] still have its valid usage?

I was confused when I read the doc.

[alexander-akait]

@naruaway yes, chunkhash still valid, but is not good for long cache, but can be useful for other purpose

[EugeneHlushko]

yup so just add [contenthash] to the table should be it

[EugeneHlushko]

@naruaway are you at it?

[EugeneHlushko]

this was stalled, so i fixed it in #3233 to close #3209