What are usedExports and sideEffects? - javascript

What exactly is the difference between usedExports in optimization of webpack config and sideEffects in package.json?

These are two different things.
About the usedExports:
Consider this as an instruction to Webpack to allow it to do two things:
Allow the exported identifiers to be renamed to shorter version (name mangling), By default, during the bundling process, the exported modifiers are not renamed.
Allow unused exports to be not exported from a module. By default, all the exported identifiers (variables, functions, classes, etc.) are exported even if those are not used anywhere in code.
For example, in the code
// MODULE A
export const myVariable = 10;
export const myFunction1 = () => a1;
export const myFunction2 = () => a2();
// MODULE B
import { myVariable } from './a.js';
// MODULE C
import { myFunction1 } from './a.js';
With this flag enabled, in above code, since myFunction2 is not used anywhere in the code, it would not be exported when the a.js module is being exported. Next thing it would probably try is to rename myVariable to single letter identifier like a and myFunction1 to b or similar. This applies to not just the modules you have authored but also the modules from node_modules as well.
About the sideEffects:
Although module bundler like webpack is smart enough to figure out if there are side effect in a given module, providing explicit sideEffects hints adds more confidence for bundler.
When doing the production bundling, the sideEffects and usedExports is used only if optimization.providedExports flag is enabled.

Related

How to load named exports with SystemJS

If I have a lib, say utils.js which looks like this
exports.foo = function () {
return 'foo';
};
exports.bar = function () {
return 'bar';
};
Which can be used as follows
import {foo} from './libs/utils';
console.log(foo());
Not very spectacular, but I get the feeling that this problem is the origin of the issue described in this post. Anyway I cannot get this to work in combination with SystemJS. I have to change the code to fix it
import utils from './libs/utils';
console.log(utils.foo());
Here is my systemjs-config file:
SystemJS.config({
map: {
'plugin-babel': 'node_modules/systemjs-plugin-babel/plugin-babel.js',
'systemjs-babel-build': 'node_modules/systemjs-plugin-babel/systemjs-babel-browser.js',
},
packages: {
'.': {
defaultJSExtensions: 'js'
}
},
transpiler: 'plugin-babel'
});
So, it seems only the exports object can be loaded and not the named export. Can this somehow be fixed?
UPDATE I get the impression it could be fixed with formats
meta: {
'./libs/utils.js': {
format: 'cjs'
}
}
But so far it gives the same problems
This behavior is not SystemJS specific. SystemJS behaves like this since version 0.20 because this is what ES6 module interoperability is being standardized to.
When, as in your question, you are importing CommonJS modules (exported via module.exports) using ES6 import, you will only get the entire export, and you cannot immediately destructure the exported names.
However, when you are importing modules which are exported via ES6 export, you will be able to destructure the exported names.
So, it's all by design. Guy Bedford wrote about this on his blog and referenced the module standardization that is going on for NodeJS:
... named exports will no longer be permitted when importing a
CommonJS module from an ES module, and is discussed at
https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/pull/60/files#diff-2b572743d67d8a47685ae4bcb9bec651R217.
That is, import { name } from 'cjs.js', where cjs.js is a CommonJS
module will no longer be supported, and instead will require
import cjs from 'cjs.js'; cjs.name.
An interop workaround by using __esModule:
We will continue to support the __esModule flag in interop though,
allowing lifting of named exports for these cases.
So if the cjs.js module was written:
exports.__esModule = true;
exports.name = function () { ... }
then it would be possible to have import { name } from 'cjs.js';, even
though cjs.js is a CommonJS module, although this __esModule will
eventually in the longer term be deprecated as well.

How should I define a global TypeScript variable in a definition file so that it can be imported?

I have an external JS library with a global parameter:
function Thing() { ... }
...
var thing = new Thing();
There is a TypeScript definition file, so in thing.d.ts:
declare var thing: ThingStatic;
export default thing;
export interface ThingStatic {
functionOnThing(): ThingFoo;
}
export interface ThingFoo {
... and so on
Then I import this into my own TS files with:
import thing from 'thing';
import {ThingFoo} from 'thing';
...
const x:ThingFoo = thing.functionOnThing();
The problem is that transpiles to:
const thing_1 = require("thing");
...
thing_1.default.functionOnThing();
Which throws an error. I've asked about that in another question, and the suggestion is to use:
import * as thing from 'thing';
That doesn't fix it - it gives me thing.default in TS but then that's undefined once transpiled to JS.
I think there's something wrong with thing.d.ts - there must be a way to define a typed global parameter that can be imported.
How should I write thing.d.ts so that it represents the JS correctly and doesn't transpile to include default or other properties not actually present?
If the only way to use that library is by accessing its globals (as opposed to importing it as node module or amd or umd module), then the easiest way to go is have a declaration file without any exports at top level. Just declaring a variable is enough. To use it, you have to include that declaration file when compiling your typescript code, either by adding it to files or include in tsconfig.json, or directly on command line. You also have to include the library with a <script> tag at runtime.
Example: thing.d.ts
declare var thing: ThingStatic;
declare interface ThingStatic {
functionOnThing(): ThingFoo;
}
declare interface ThingFoo {
}
test-thing.ts
const x:ThingFoo = thing.functionOnThing();
can be compiled together
./node_modules/.bin/tsc test-thing.ts thing.d.ts
the result in test-thing.js:
var x = thing.functionOnThing();
See also this question about ambient declarations.
Note: there are module loaders out there that allow using global libraries as if they were modules, so it's possible to use import statement instead of <script> tag, but how to configure these module loaders to do that is another, more complicated question.

Duplicate identifier error with d.ts file and nodejs require with same name

Now I am sure the issue is because there is a d.ts file included which contains a module called "Shared", and a require statement which includes a variable of the same name if it is being used in a NodeJS environment.
// shared.d.ts
declare module Shared { ... }
// other_module.ts
/// <reference path="shared.d.ts"/>
if(require) { var Shared = require("shared"); }
export class Something {
public someVar = new Shared.SomethingElse("blah");
}
So when I compile other_module.ts (which is actually a lot of separate files), it tells me Shared is a duplicate identifier, which I can understand as TS thinks Shared is a module, but then is being told it is the return of require.
The problem here is that the output of modules need to be compatible with nodeJS's require system, so in this case when other_module is required it will be in its own scope and will not know about Shared.SomethingElse so the require is needed so the internal modules in other_module will be able to access the Shared library, but in the browser environment it would get Shared.SomethingElse via the global scope.
If I remove the reference then the file wont compile as it doesn't know about Shared, if I remove the require when the module is loaded into nodejs (var otherModule = require("other_module")) it will complain that it doesn't know about Shared. So is there a way to solve this?
First the error
Duplicate identifier because you have Shared in shared.d.ts + in other_module.ts.
FIX A, be all external
If you want to use amd / commonjs ie. external modules, you need to use import/require (not var/require like you are doing). Using an import creates a new variable declaration space and therefore you are no longer polluting the global namespace Shared from other_module.ts. In short :
// shared.d.ts
declare module Shared {
export function SomethingElse(arg:string):any;
}
declare module 'shared'{
export = Shared;
}
And a typesafe import:
// other_module.ts
/// <reference path="shared.d.ts"/>
import Shared = require("shared");
export class Something {
public someVar = new Shared.SomethingElse("blah");
}
FIX B, as you were, but you need to use a different name then
Inside other_module don't use the name Shared locally if local scope is global scope. I recommend you just use external everywhere and compile for node with commonjs and browser with amd as shown in fix A, but if you must here is a compile fixed other_module.ts.
// other_module.ts
/// <reference path="shared.d.ts"/>
var fooShared: typeof Shared;
if(require) { fooShared = require("shared"); }
else { fooShared = Shared; }
export class Something {
public someVar = new fooShared.SomethingElse("blah");
}

Use function from the main.js in imported module

I'm trying to include IOUtil.js and ChannelReplacement.js in my add-on, using the Cu.import(...) function. These two both use xpcom_generateQI, which I'm trying to obtain from the XPCOM jsm, but the two scripts cant access it.
const {Cc, Ci, Cu, Cr} = require("chrome");
Cu.import("resource://gre/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm");
const xpcom_generateQI = XPCOMUtils.generateQI;
Cu.import(self.data.url("IOUtil.js"));
Cu.import(self.data.url("ChannelReplacement.js"));
gives me xpcom_generateQI is not defined.
How do I access a function which is defined in main.js?
Issues
Don't use Cu.import for local SDK modules. Don't write JS code modules for SDK add-ons, the SDK uses CommonJS-style modules together with the require() facility which also comes with proper cleanup for free, which cannot be said for JS code modules and Cu.import (you'd need to properly Cu.unload everything and likely kill some references yourself).
That https-everywhere stuff are neither JS code modules nor SDK modules, but uses the subscript loader. Either convert it to SDK code modules, or use the subscript loader yourself.
It is OK to import built-in JS Code modules in different scopes/modules. There is not actually a need to make available xpcom_generateQI from main (although it can be done; well, get to that).
To be future proof, you should bind your xpcom_generateQI shortcut properly, as in XPCOMUtils.generateQI.bind(XPCOMUtils). Otherwise, if the implementation changes and requires a proper this, your stuff will break.
To export something from any CommonJS module, you need to put it into the exports module. See the first link.
To import something, use require() (first link again).
Be aware of circular references, where Module A imports Module B imports Module A. Right now this kinda works (but only kinda, because some stuff might not be available from Module A when Module B imports it like this, as Module A is not fully loaded). Better avoid it.
Example 1 (circular)
So here is a example with circular require (main imports modules imports main)
main.js
function someFunction() {
console.log("some function called");
}
exports.someFunction = someFunction;
var mod = require("./module");
mod.anotherFunction();
module.js
const { someFunction } = require("./main");
exports.anotherFunction = function() {
someFunction();
}
Now, because of circular references this is a fragile construct. If works right now, but when modules get more complex or the SDK changes, it might break... Better put someFunction into a third module.
Example 2 (avoiding circular imports)
main.js
var mod = require("./module");
mod.anotherFunction();
// Or call someFunction directly
var { someFunction } = require("./utils");
someFunction();
module.js
const { someFunction } = require("./utils");
exports.anotherFunction = function() {
someFunction();
}
utils.js
function someFunction() {
console.log("some function called");
}
exports.someFunction = someFunction;
There are no circles anymore. If you wanted to reuse xpcom_generateQI, you'd put it as a property of exports in utils.js (in this example) and later require it with require("./utils").
https-everywhere
The https-everywhere stuff needs to be either converted or loaded using the subscript loader. I would recommend against the subscript loader, because in all likelihood the verbatim https-everywhere code does not clean up after itself. I'd actually also recommend against just converting it by throwing some stuff in (exports.xzy = ...). This code is not meant to be run in the SDK. Better create your own implementation and just borrow ideas from https-everywhere where needed.

What does exports mean in javascript? [duplicate]

What is the purpose of Node.js module.exports and how do you use it?
I can't seem to find any information on this, but it appears to be a rather important part of Node.js as I often see it in source code.
According to the Node.js documentation:
module
A reference to the current
module. In particular module.exports
is the same as the exports object. See
src/node.js for more information.
But this doesn't really help.
What exactly does module.exports do, and what would a simple example be?
module.exports is the object that's actually returned as the result of a require call.
The exports variable is initially set to that same object (i.e. it's a shorthand "alias"), so in the module code you would usually write something like this:
let myFunc1 = function() { ... };
let myFunc2 = function() { ... };
exports.myFunc1 = myFunc1;
exports.myFunc2 = myFunc2;
to export (or "expose") the internally scoped functions myFunc1 and myFunc2.
And in the calling code you would use:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.myFunc1();
where the last line shows how the result of require is (usually) just a plain object whose properties may be accessed.
NB: if you overwrite exports then it will no longer refer to module.exports. So if you wish to assign a new object (or a function reference) to exports then you should also assign that new object to module.exports
It's worth noting that the name added to the exports object does not have to be the same as the module's internally scoped name for the value that you're adding, so you could have:
let myVeryLongInternalName = function() { ... };
exports.shortName = myVeryLongInternalName;
// add other objects, functions, as required
followed by:
const m = require('./mymodule');
m.shortName(); // invokes module.myVeryLongInternalName
This has already been answered but I wanted to add some clarification...
You can use both exports and module.exports to import code into your application like this:
var mycode = require('./path/to/mycode');
The basic use case you'll see (e.g. in ExpressJS example code) is that you set properties on the exports object in a .js file that you then import using require()
So in a simple counting example, you could have:
(counter.js):
var count = 1;
exports.increment = function() {
count++;
};
exports.getCount = function() {
return count;
};
... then in your application (web.js, or really any other .js file):
var counting = require('./counter.js');
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 1
counting.increment();
console.log(counting.getCount()); // 2
In simple terms, you can think of required files as functions that return a single object, and you can add properties (strings, numbers, arrays, functions, anything) to the object that's returned by setting them on exports.
Sometimes you'll want the object returned from a require() call to be a function you can call, rather than just an object with properties. In that case you need to also set module.exports, like this:
(sayhello.js):
module.exports = exports = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
};
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello.js');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
The difference between exports and module.exports is explained better in this answer here.
Note that the NodeJS module mechanism is based on CommonJS modules which are supported in many other implementations like RequireJS, but also SproutCore, CouchDB, Wakanda, OrientDB, ArangoDB, RingoJS, TeaJS, SilkJS, curl.js, or even Adobe Photoshop (via PSLib).
You can find the full list of known implementations here.
Unless your module use node specific features or module, I highly encourage you then using exports instead of module.exports which is not part of the CommonJS standard, and then mostly not supported by other implementations.
Another NodeJS specific feature is when you assign a reference to a new object to exports instead of just adding properties and methods to it like in the last example provided by Jed Watson in this thread. I would personally discourage this practice as this breaks the circular reference support of the CommonJS modules mechanism. It is then not supported by all implementations and Jed example should then be written this way (or a similar one) to provide a more universal module:
(sayhello.js):
exports.run = function() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
(app.js):
var sayHello = require('./sayhello');
sayHello.run(); // "Hello World!"
Or using ES6 features
(sayhello.js):
Object.assign(exports, {
// Put all your public API here
sayhello() {
console.log("Hello World!");
}
});
(app.js):
const { sayHello } = require('./sayhello');
sayHello(); // "Hello World!"
PS: It looks like Appcelerator also implements CommonJS modules, but without the circular reference support (see: Appcelerator and CommonJS modules (caching and circular references))
Some few things you must take care if you assign a reference to a new object to exports and /or modules.exports:
1. All properties/methods previously attached to the original exports or module.exports are of course lost because the exported object will now reference another new one
This one is obvious, but if you add an exported method at the beginning of an existing module, be sure the native exported object is not referencing another object at the end
exports.method1 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the original exported object
module.exports.method3 = function () {}; // exposed with method1 & method2
var otherAPI = {
// some properties and/or methods
}
exports = otherAPI; // replace the original API (works also with module.exports)
2. In case one of exports or module.exports reference a new value, they don't reference to the same object any more
exports = function AConstructor() {}; // override the original exported object
exports.method2 = function () {}; // exposed to the new exported object
// method added to the original exports object which not exposed any more
module.exports.method3 = function () {};
3. Tricky consequence. If you change the reference to both exports and module.exports, hard to say which API is exposed (it looks like module.exports wins)
// override the original exported object
module.exports = function AConstructor() {};
// try to override the original exported object
// but module.exports will be exposed instead
exports = function AnotherConstructor() {};
the module.exports property or the exports object allows a module to select what should be shared with the application
I have a video on module_export available here
When dividing your program code over multiple files, module.exports is used to publish variables and functions to the consumer of a module. The require() call in your source file is replaced with corresponding module.exports loaded from the module.
Remember when writing modules
Module loads are cached, only initial call evaluates JavaScript.
It's possible to use local variables and functions inside a module, not everything needs to be exported.
The module.exports object is also available as exports shorthand. But when returning a sole function, always use module.exports.
According to: "Modules Part 2 - Writing modules".
the refer link is like this:
exports = module.exports = function(){
//....
}
the properties of exports or module.exports ,such as functions or variables , will be exposed outside
there is something you must pay more attention : don't override exports .
why ?
because exports just the reference of module.exports , you can add the properties onto the exports ,but if you override the exports , the reference link will be broken .
good example :
exports.name = 'william';
exports.getName = function(){
console.log(this.name);
}
bad example :
exports = 'william';
exports = function(){
//...
}
If you just want to exposed only one function or variable , like this:
// test.js
var name = 'william';
module.exports = function(){
console.log(name);
}
// index.js
var test = require('./test');
test();
this module only exposed one function and the property of name is private for the outside .
There are some default or existing modules in node.js when you download and install node.js like http, sys etc.
Since they are already in node.js, when we want to use these modules we basically do like import modules, but why? because they are already present in the node.js. Importing is like taking them from node.js and putting them into your program. And then using them.
Whereas Exports is exactly the opposite, you are creating the module you want, let's say the module addition.js and putting that module into the node.js, you do it by exporting it.
Before I write anything here, remember, module.exports.additionTwo is same as exports.additionTwo
Huh, so that's the reason, we do like
exports.additionTwo = function(x)
{return x+2;};
Be careful with the path
Lets say you have created an addition.js module,
exports.additionTwo = function(x){
return x + 2;
};
When you run this on your NODE.JS command prompt:
node
var run = require('addition.js');
This will error out saying
Error: Cannot find module addition.js
This is because the node.js process is unable the addition.js since we didn't mention the path. So, we have can set the path by using NODE_PATH
set NODE_PATH = path/to/your/additon.js
Now, this should run successfully without any errors!!
One more thing, you can also run the addition.js file by not setting the NODE_PATH, back to your nodejs command prompt:
node
var run = require('./addition.js');
Since we are providing the path here by saying it's in the current directory ./ this should also run successfully.
A module encapsulates related code into a single unit of code. When creating a module, this can be interpreted as moving all related functions into a file.
Suppose there is a file Hello.js which include two functions
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
We write a function only when utility of the code is more than one call.
Suppose we want to increase utility of the function to a different file say World.js,in this case exporting a file comes into picture which can be obtained by module.exports.
You can just export both the function by the code given below
var anyVariable={
sayHelloInEnglish = function() {
return "Hello";
};
sayHelloInSpanish = function() {
return "Hola";
};
}
module.export=anyVariable;
Now you just need to require the file name into World.js inorder to use those functions
var world= require("./hello.js");
The intent is:
Modular programming is a software design technique that emphasizes
separating the functionality of a program into independent,
interchangeable modules, such that each contains everything necessary
to execute only one aspect of the desired functionality.
Wikipedia
I imagine it becomes difficult to write a large programs without modular / reusable code. In nodejs we can create modular programs utilising module.exports defining what we expose and compose our program with require.
Try this example:
fileLog.js
function log(string) { require('fs').appendFileSync('log.txt',string); }
module.exports = log;
stdoutLog.js
function log(string) { console.log(string); }
module.exports = log;
program.js
const log = require('./stdoutLog.js')
log('hello world!');
execute
$ node program.js
hello world!
Now try swapping ./stdoutLog.js for ./fileLog.js.
What is the purpose of a module system?
It accomplishes the following things:
Keeps our files from bloating to really big sizes. Having files with e.g. 5000 lines of code in it are usually real hard to deal with during development.
Enforces separation of concerns. Having our code split up into multiple files allows us to have appropriate file names for every file. This way we can easily identify what every module does and where to find it (assuming we made a logical directory structure which is still your responsibility).
Having modules makes it easier to find certain parts of code which makes our code more maintainable.
How does it work?
NodejS uses the CommomJS module system which works in the following manner:
If a file wants to export something it has to declare it using module.export syntax
If a file wants to import something it has to declare it using require('file') syntax
Example:
test1.js
const test2 = require('./test2'); // returns the module.exports object of a file
test2.Func1(); // logs func1
test2.Func2(); // logs func2
test2.js
module.exports.Func1 = () => {console.log('func1')};
exports.Func2 = () => {console.log('func2')};
Other useful things to know:
Modules are getting cached. When you are loading the same module in 2 different files the module only has to be loaded once. The second time a require() is called on the same module the is pulled from the cache.
Modules are loaded in synchronous. This behavior is required, if it was asynchronous we couldn't access the object retrieved from require() right away.
ECMAScript modules - 2022
From Node 14.0 ECMAScript modules are no longer experimental and you can use them instead of classic Node's CommonJS modules.
ECMAScript modules are the official standard format to package JavaScript code for reuse. Modules are defined using a variety of import and export statements.
You can define an ES module that exports a function:
// my-fun.mjs
function myFun(num) {
// do something
}
export { myFun };
Then, you can import the exported function from my-fun.mjs:
// app.mjs
import { myFun } from './my-fun.mjs';
myFun();
.mjs is the default extension for Node.js ECMAScript modules.
But you can configure the default modules extension to lookup when resolving modules using the package.json "type" field, or the --input-type flag in the CLI.
Recent versions of Node.js fully supports both ECMAScript and CommonJS modules. Moreover, it provides interoperability between them.
module.exports
ECMAScript and CommonJS modules have many differences but the most relevant difference - to this question - is that there are no more requires, no more exports, no more module.exports
In most cases, the ES module import can be used to load CommonJS modules.
If needed, a require function can be constructed within an ES module using module.createRequire().
ECMAScript modules releases history
Release
Changes
v15.3.0, v14.17.0, v12.22.0
Stabilized modules implementation
v14.13.0, v12.20.0
Support for detection of CommonJS named exports
v14.0.0, v13.14.0, v12.20.0
Remove experimental modules warning
v13.2.0, v12.17.0
Loading ECMAScript modules no longer requires a command-line flag
v12.0.0
Add support for ES modules using .js file extension via package.json "type" field
v8.5.0
Added initial ES modules implementation
You can find all the changelogs in Node.js repository
let test = function() {
return "Hello world"
};
exports.test = test;

Categories