We Keep Coding

Bundle multiple named AMD modules with dependencies into one JS file (building a web app extension system)

I'm working on an extension system for my web app. Third-party developers should be able to extend the app by providing named AMD modules exporting constants and functions following a predefined spec and bundled into a single .js JavaScript file.
Example JavaScript bundle:
define('module1', ['exports', 'module3'], (function (exports, module3) {
exports.spec = 'http://example.com/spec/extension/v1'
exports.onRequest = function (request) { return module3.respond('Hello, World.') }
}));
define('module2', ['exports', 'module3'], (function (exports, module3) {
exports.spec = 'http://example.com/spec/extension/v1'
exports.onRequest = function (request) { return module3.respond('Foo. Bar.') }
}));
define('module3', ['exports'], (function (exports) {
exports.respond = function (message) { return { type: 'message', message: message } }
}));
In the above example module1 and module2 are extension modules (identified by the spec export) and module3 is a shared dependency (e.g. coming from an NPM package). Extension bundles will be loaded in a worker within a sandboxed iframe to seal of the untrusted code in the browser.
Example TypeScript source:
// module1.ts
import respond from 'module3'
export const spec = 'http://example.com/spec/extension/v1'
export const onRequest = (request: Request): Response => respond('Hello, World.')
// module2.ts
import respond from 'module3'
export const spec = 'http://example.com/spec/extension/v1'
export const onRequest = (request: Request): Response => respond('Foo. Bar.')
// module3.ts
import dep from 'some-npm-package'
export respond = (message: string) => dep.createMessageObject(message)
Here is my list of requirements to bundling:
All necessary dependencies (e.g. shared module, NPM package logic) must be included in the bundle
The source code needs to be transpiled to browser compatible code if necessary
The AMD format is required by the custom extension loader implementation
The AMD modules must not be anonymous as the module file names are lost while bundling
No relative paths must be used among dependencies (e.g. ./path/to/module3 instead of module3)
The result should be one JavaScript bundle, thus ONE JavaScript file and ONE sourcemaps file
What's the easiest way to do this?
This is the closest solution I found using rollup and the following rollup.config.js:
import { nodeResolve } from '#rollup/plugin-node-resolve'
import { terser } from 'rollup-plugin-terser'
import typescript from '#rollup/plugin-typescript'
export default {
input: [
'src/module1.ts',
'src/module2.ts'
],
output: {
dir: 'dist',
format: 'amd',
sourcemap: true,
amd: {
autoId: true
}
},
plugins: [
typescript(),
nodeResolve(),
terser()
]
}
From this I get the desired named AMD modules (one for each entry point and chunk) in separate .js files. Problems:
Some dependencies are referenced by ./module3 while being named module3.
The modules appear in separate JavaScript and Sourcemap files instead of being concatenated into a single bundle.
Questions:
Is there an easy fix to the above rollup.config.js config to solve the problem?
I tried to write a small rollup plugin but I failed to get the final AMD module code within it to concatenate it to a bundle. Only the transpiled code is available to me. In addition I don't know how to handle sourcemaps during concatenation.
Is there an alternative to rollup better suited to this bundling scenario?
The big picture: Am I completely on the wrong track when it comes to building an extension system? Is AMD the wrong choice?

I found a way to extend the rollup.config.js mentioned in the question with a custom concatChunks rollup plugin to bundle multiple AMD chunks within a single file and having the source maps rendered, too. The only issue I didn't find an answer to was the relative module names that kept popping up. However, this may be resolved in the AMD loader.
Here's the full rollup.config.js that worked for me:
import Concat from 'concat-with-sourcemaps'
import glob from 'glob'
import typescript from '#rollup/plugin-typescript'
import { nodeResolve } from '#rollup/plugin-node-resolve'
import { terser } from 'rollup-plugin-terser'
const concatChunks = (
fileName = 'bundle.js',
sourceMapFileName = 'bundle.js.map'
) => {
return {
name: 'rollup-plugin-concat-chunks',
generateBundle: function (options, bundle, isWrite) {
const concat = new Concat(true, fileName, '\n')
// Go through each chunk in the bundle
let hasSourceMaps = false
Object.keys(bundle).forEach(fileId => {
const fileInfo = bundle[fileId]
if (fileInfo.type === 'chunk') {
let hasSourceMap = fileInfo.map !== null
hasSourceMaps = hasSourceMaps || hasSourceMap
// Concat file content and source maps with bundle
concat.add(
fileInfo.fileName,
fileInfo.code,
hasSourceMap ? JSON.stringify(fileInfo.map) : null
)
// Prevent single chunks from being emitted
delete bundle[fileId]
}
})
// Emit concatenated chunks
this.emitFile({
type: 'asset',
name: fileName,
fileName: fileName,
source: concat.content
})
// Emit concatenated source maps, if any
if (hasSourceMaps) {
this.emitFile({
type: 'asset',
name: sourceMapFileName,
fileName: sourceMapFileName,
source: concat.sourceMap
})
}
}
}
}
export default {
input: glob.sync('./src/*.{ts,js}'),
output: {
dir: 'dist',
format: 'amd',
sourcemap: true,
amd: {
autoId: true
}
},
plugins: [
typescript(),
nodeResolve(),
terser(),
concatChunks()
]
}
Please make sure you npm install the dependencies referenced in the import statements to make this work.
Considering the big picture, i.e. the extension system itself, I am moving away from a "one AMD module equals one extension/contribution" approach, as current developer tools and JavaScript bundlers are not ready for that (as this question shows). I'll go with an approach similar to the Visual Studio Code Extension API and will use a single "default" module with an activate export to register contributions a bundle has to offer. I hope that this will make extension bundling an easy task no matter what tools or languages are being used.

next-images Error: Module parse failed: Unexpected character '�'

I'm trying to load an image with next-images:
when i type in the image name it works fine:
//Working
<Image src={require(`../../images/exampleImage.jpg` )}/>
but i dont want that i want dynamic url like this:
//Not working
<img src={require(`../../images/${image}.jpg` )}/>
i get this error:
Error: Module parse failed: Unexpected character '�' (1:0)
You may need an appropriate loader to handle this file type, currently no loaders are configured to process this file. See https://webpack.js.org/concepts#loaders
(Source code omitted for this binary file)
my next.config.js file:
const withImages = require("next-images");
module.exports = withImages();
i also tried this config:
module.exports = {
webpack: (config, options) => {
config.module.rules.push(
{
test: /\.(jpe?g|png|gif|woff|woff2|eot|ttf|svg)(\?[a-z0-9=.]+)?$/,
loader: 'url-loader?limit=100000'
}
)
return config
},
}
I tried many methods but none seems to work please help, thanks

If you're open to using the file-loader library to handle images on the project. You could install the library and set the rules like this on webpack:
...
config.module.rules.push(
{
test: /\.(png|jpeg|jpg|gif|svg)$/,
use: {
loader: "file-loader"
},
}
),
You can read more about file-loader from its documentation on webpack

Webpack is most likely trying to find & include your images at the build time. This cannot work with reading the name from a variable. You have 2 options:
manage images differently
if you have a finite (or rather short) list of images, just import all & use some kind of switch to control which image is displayed.

I had this issue too.
delete all your code in the next.config.js
add the below codes instead:
/** #type {import('next').NextConfig} */
const nextConfig = {
reactStrictMode: true,
images: {
dangerouslyAllowSVG: true,
contentSecurityPolicy: "default-src 'self'; script-src 'none'; sandbox;",
},
};
module.exports = nextConfig;
It resolved my problem.

Vue Render HTML - You may need an additional loader to handle the result of these loaders

I'm trying to render HTML dynamically in Vue (javascript) and I'm getting this error, does anyone know how to fix it?
Module parse failed: Unexpected token (224:36)
File was processed with these loaders:
* ./node_modules/cache-loader/dist/cjs.js
* ./node_modules/vue-loader/lib/index.js
You may need an additional loader to handle the result of these loaders.
This is the code that generates the above error:
headings: {
id: 'ID',
selected: function (h) {
return <b-form-checkbox v-model={this.checkedAll} onChange={this.selectAll}>
</b-form-checkbox>
}
}

I solved the problem by installing babel
https://github.com/vuejs/babel-plugin-transform-vue-jsx
babel.config.js
module.exports = {
presets: [
'#vue/app'
]
}

How to include manual import() in Webpack Bundle

I am quite new to Webpack, so bear with me if thats a stupid question.
My goal is to transform my old, AMD based codebase to a ES6 Module based solution. What I am struggling with is handling dynamic import()s. So my app router works on a module basis, i.e. each route is mapped to a module path and then required. Since I know what modules will be included, I just add those dynamically imported modules to my r.js configuration and am able to build everything in a single file, with all require calls still working.
Now, I am trying to do the same with ES6 modules and Webpack. With my devmode this is no problem as I can just replace require() with import(). However I cannot get this to work with bundling. Either Webpack splits my code (and still fails to load the dynamic module anyways), or - if I use the Array format for the entry config, the dynamic module is included in the bundle but loading still fails: Error: Cannot find module '/src/app/DynClass.js'
This is how my Webpack config looks like:
const webpack = require('webpack');
const path = require('path');
module.exports = {
mode: "development",
entry: ['./main.js', './app/DynClass.js'],
output: {
filename: 'main.js',
path: path.resolve(__dirname, "../client/")
},
resolve: {
alias: {
"/src": path.resolve(__dirname, '')
}
},
module: {
rules: [
{
test: /\.tpl$/i,
use: 'raw-loader',
},
]
}
};
So basically I want to tell Webpack: "hey, there is another module (or more) that is to be loaded dynamically and I want it to be included in the bundle"
How can I do this?

So yeah, after much fiddling there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Still, this is not a 100% solution and it is surely not for the faint of heart, as it is quite ugly and fragile. But still I want to share my approach with you:
1) manual parsing of my routes config
My router uses a config file looking like this:
import StaticClass from "/src/app/StaticClass.js";
export default {
StaticClass: {
match: /^\//,
module: StaticClass
},
DynClass: {
match: /^\//,
module: "/src/app/DynClass.js"
}
};
So as you can see the export is an object, with keys acting as the route id, and an object that contains the matches (regex based) and the module which should be executed by the router if the route matches. I can feed my router with both a Constructor function (or an object) for modules which are available immediatly (i.e. contained in the main chunk) or if the module value is a string, this means that the router has to load this module dynamically by using the path specified in the string.
So as I know what modules could be potentially loaded (but not if and when) I can now parse this file within my build process and transform the route config to something webpack can understand:
const path = require("path");
const fs = require("fs");
let routesSource = fs.readFileSync(path.resolve(__dirname, "app/routes.js"), "utf8");
routesSource = routesSource.substr(routesSource.indexOf("export default"));
routesSource = routesSource.replace(/module:\s*((?!".*").)*$/gm, "module: undefined,");
routesSource = routesSource.replace(/\r?\n|\r/g, "").replace("export default", "var routes = ");
eval(routesSource);
let dummySource = Object.entries(routes).reduce((acc, [routeName, routeConfig]) => {
if (typeof routeConfig.module === "string") {
return acc + `import(/* webpackChunkName: "${routeName}" */"${routeConfig.module}");`;
}
return acc;
}, "") + "export default ''";
(Yeah I know this is quite ugly and also a bit brittle so this surely could be done better)
Essentially I create a new, virtual module where every route entry which demands a dynamic import is translated, so:
DynClass: {
match: /^\//,
module: "/src/app/DynClass.js"
}
becomes:
import(/* webpackChunkName: "DynClass" */"/src/app/DynClass.js");
So the route id simply becomes the name of the chunk!
2) including the virtual module in the build
For this I use the virtual-module-webpack-plugin:
plugins: [
new VirtualModulePlugin({
moduleName: "./app/dummy.js",
contents: dummySource
})
],
Where dummySource is just a string containing the sourcecode of my virtual module I just have generated. Now, this module is pulled in and the "virtual imports" can be processed by webpack. But wait, I still need to import the dummy module, but I do not have any in my development mode (where I use everything natively, so no loaders).
So in my main code I do the following:
let isDev = false;
/** #remove */
isDev = true;
/** #endremove */
if (isDev) { import('./app/dummy.js'); }
Where "dummy.js" is just an empty stub module while I am in development mode. The parts between that special comments are removed while building (using the webpack-loader-clean-pragma loader), so while webpack "sees" the import for dummy.js, this code will not be executed in the build itself since then isDev evaluates to false. And since we already defined a virtual module with the same path, the virtual module is included while building just like I want, and of course all dependencies are resolved as well.
3) Handling the actual loading
For development, this is quite easy:
import routes from './app/routes.js';
Object.entries(routes).forEach(async ([routeId, route]) => {
if (typeof route.module === "function") {
new route.module;
} else {
const result = await import(route.module);
new result.default;
}
});
(Note that this is not the actual router code, just enough to help me with my PoC)
Well, but for the build I need something else, so I added some code specific to the build environment:
/** #remove */
const result = await import(route.module);
new result.default;
/** #endremove */
if (!isDev) {
if (typeof route.module === "string") { await __webpack_require__.e(routeId); }
const result = __webpack_require__(route.module.replace("/src", "."));
new result.default;
}
Now, the loading code for the dev environment is just stripped out, and there is another loading code that uses webpack internally. I also check if the module value is a function or string, and if it is the latter I invoke the internal require.ensure function to load the correct chunk: await __webpack_require__.e(routeId);. Remember that I named my chunks when generating the virtual module? Now thats why I still can find them now!
4) more needs to be done
Another thing I encountered is when several dynamically loaded modules have the same dependencies, webpack tries to generate more chunks with names like module1~module2.bundle.js, breaking my build. To counter this, I needed to make sure that all those shared modules go into a specific named bundle I called "shared":
optimization: {
splitChunks: {
chunks: "all",
name: "shared"
}
}
And when in production mode, I simply load this chunk manually before any dynamic modules depending on it are requested:
if (!isDev) {
await __webpack_require__.e("shared");
}
Again, this code only runs in production mode!
Finally, I have to prevent webpack renaming my modules (and chunks) to something like "1", "2" etc, but rather keep the names I just have defined:
optimization: {
namedChunks: true,
namedModules: true
}
Se yeah, there you have it! As I said this wasn't pretty but seems to work, at least with my simplified test setup. I really hope there aren't any blockers ahead of me when I do all the rest (like ESLint, SCSS etc)!

How can I mock Webpack's require.context in Jest?

Suppose I have the following module:
var modulesReq = require.context('.', false, /\.js$/);
modulesReq.keys().forEach(function(module) {
modulesReq(module);
});
Jest complains because it doesn't know about require.context:
FAIL /foo/bar.spec.js (0s)
● Runtime Error
- TypeError: require.context is not a function
How can I mock it? I tried using setupTestFrameworkScriptFile Jest configuration but the tests can't see any changes that I've made in require.

I had the same problem, then I've made a 'solution'.
I'm pretty sure that this is not the best choice. I ended up stopping using it, by the points answered here:
https://github.com/facebookincubator/create-react-app/issues/517
https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/2298
But if you really need it, you should include the polyfill below in every file that you call it (not on the tests file itself, because the require will be no global overridden in a Node environment).
// This condition actually should detect if it's an Node environment
if (typeof require.context === 'undefined') {
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
require.context = (base = '.', scanSubDirectories = false, regularExpression = /\.js$/) => {
const files = {};
function readDirectory(directory) {
fs.readdirSync(directory).forEach((file) => {
const fullPath = path.resolve(directory, file);
if (fs.statSync(fullPath).isDirectory()) {
if (scanSubDirectories) readDirectory(fullPath);
return;
}
if (!regularExpression.test(fullPath)) return;
files[fullPath] = true;
});
}
readDirectory(path.resolve(__dirname, base));
function Module(file) {
return require(file);
}
Module.keys = () => Object.keys(files);
return Module;
};
}
With this function, you don't need to change any require.context call, it will execute with the same behavior as it would (if it's on webpack it will just use the original implementation, and if it's inside Jest execution, with the polyfill function).

After spending some hours trying each of the answers above. I would like to contribute.
Adding babel-plugin-transform-require-context plugin to .babelrc for test env fixed all the issues.
Install - babel-plugin-transform-require-context here https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-transform-require-context (available with yarn too)
Now add plugin to .babelrc
{
"env": {
"test": {
"plugins": ["transform-require-context"]
}
}
}
It will simply transform require-context for test env into dummy fn calls so that code can run safely.

If you are using Babel, look at babel-plugin-require-context-hook. Configuration instructions for Storybook are available at Storyshots | Configure Jest to work with Webpack's require.context(), but they are not Storyshots/Storybook specific.
To summarise:
Install the plugin.
yarn add babel-plugin-require-context-hook --dev
Create a file .jest/register-context.js with the following contents:
import registerRequireContextHook from 'babel-plugin-require-context-hook/register';
registerRequireContextHook();
Configure Jest (the file depends on where you are storing your Jest configuration, e.g. package.json):
setupFiles: ['<rootDir>/.jest/register-context.js']
Add the plugin to .babelrc
{
"presets": ["..."],
"plugins": ["..."],
"env": {
"test": {
"plugins": ["require-context-hook"]
}
}
}
Alternatively, add it to babel.config.js:
module.exports = function(api) {
api.cache(true)
const presets = [...]
const plugins = [...]
if (process.env.NODE_ENV === "test") {
plugins.push("require-context-hook")
}
return {
presets,
plugins
}
}
It may be worth noting that using babel.config.js rather than .babelrc may cause issues. For example, I found that when I defined the require-context-hook plugin in babel.config.js:
Jest 22 didn't pick it up;
Jest 23 picked it up; but
jest --coverage didn't pick it up (perhaps Istanbul isn't up to speed with Babel 7?).
In all cases, a .babelrc configuration was fine.
Remarks on Edmundo Rodrigues's answer
This babel-plugin-require-context-hook plugin uses code that is similar to Edmundo Rodrigues's answer here. Props to Edmundo! Because the plugin is implemented as a Babel plugin, it avoids static analysis issues. e.g. With Edmundo's solution, Webpack warns:
Critical dependency: require function is used in a way in which dependencies cannot be statically extracted
Despite the warnings, Edmundo's solution is the most robust because it doesn't depend on Babel.

Extract the call to a separate module:
// src/js/lib/bundle-loader.js
/* istanbul ignore next */
module.exports = require.context('bundle-loader?lazy!../components/', false, /.*\.vue$/)
Use the new module in the module where you extracted it from:
// src/js/lib/loader.js
const loadModule = require('lib/bundle-loader')
Create a mock for the newly created bundle-loader module:
// test/unit/specs/__mocks__/lib/bundle-loader.js
export default () => () => 'foobar'
Use the mock in your test:
// test/unit/specs/lib/loader.spec.js
jest.mock('lib/bundle-loader')
import Loader from 'lib/loader'
describe('lib/loader', () => {
describe('Loader', () => {
it('should load', () => {
const loader = new Loader('[data-module]')
expect(loader).toBeInstanceOf(Loader)
})
})
})

Alrighty! I had major issues with this and managed to come to a solution that worked for me by using a combination of other answers and the Docs. (Took me a good day though)
For anyone else who is struggling:
Create a file called bundle-loader.js and add something like:
module.exports = {
importFiles: () => {
const r = require.context(<your_path_to_your_files>)
<your_processing>
return <your_processed_files>
}
}
In your code import like:
import bundleLoader from '<your_relative_Path>/bundle-loader'
Use like
let <your_var_name> = bundleLoader.importFiles()
In your test file right underneath other imports:
jest.mock('../../utils/bundle-loader', () => ({
importFiles: () => {
return <this_will_be_what_you_recieve_in_the_test_from_import_files>
}
}))

Installing
babel-plugin-transform-require-context
package and adding the plugin in the .babelrc resolved the issue for me.
Refer to the documentation here:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/babel-plugin-transform-require-context

The easiest and fastest way to solve this problem will be to install require-context.macro
npm install --save-dev require-context.macro
then just replace:
var modulesReq = require.context('.', false, /\.js$/);
with:
var modulesReq = requireContext('.', false, /\.js$/);
Thats it, you should be good to go!
Cheers and good luck!

Implementation problems not mentioned:
Jest prevents out-of-scope variables in mock, like __dirname.
Create React App limits Babel and Jest customization. You need to use src/setupTests.js which is run before every test.
fs is not supported in the browser. You will need something like browserFS. Now your app has file system support, just for dev.
Potential race condition. Export after this import. One of your require.context imports includes that export. I'm sure require takes care of this, but now we are adding a lot of fs work on top of it.
Type checking.
Either #4 or #5 created undefined errors. Type out the imports, no more errors. No more concerns about what can or can't be imported and where.
Motivation for all this? Extensibility. Keeping future modifications limited to one new file. Publishing separate modules is a better approach.
If there's an easier way to import, node would do it. Also this smacks of premature optimization. You end up scrapping everything anyways because you're now using an industry leading platform or utility.

If you're using Jest with test-utils in Vue.
Install these packages:
#vue/cli-plugin-babel
and
babel-plugin-transform-require-context
Then define babel.config.js at the root of the project with this configuration:
module.exports = function(api) {
api.cache(true);
const presets = [
'#vue/cli-plugin-babel/preset'
];
const plugins = [];
if (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') {
plugins.push('transform-require-context');
}
return {
presets,
plugins
};
};
This will check if the current process is initiated by Jest and if so, it mocks all the require.context calls.

I faced the same issue with an ejected create-react-app project
and no one from the answers above helped me...
My solution were to copy to config/babelTransform.js the follwoing:
module.exports = babelJest.createTransformer({
presets: [
[
require.resolve('babel-preset-react-app'),
{
runtime: hasJsxRuntime ? 'automatic' : 'classic',
},
],
],
plugins:["transform-require-context"],
babelrc: false,
configFile: false,
});

Simpleset Solution for this
Just Do
var modulesReq = require.context && require.context('.', false, /\.js$/);
if(modulesReq) {
modulesReq.keys().forEach(function(module) {
modulesReq(module);
});
}
So Here I have added extra check if require.context is defined then only execute By Doing this jest will no longer complain