I'm writing some frontend code with ECMAScript 6 (transpiled with BabelJS, and then browserified with Browserify) so that I can have a class in one file, export it and import it in another file.
The way I'm doing this is:
export class Game {
constructor(settings) {
...
}
}
And then on the file that imports the class I do:
import {Game} from "../../lib/pentagine_browserified.js";
var myGame = new Game(settings);
I then compile it with grunt, this is my Gruntfile:
module.exports = function(grunt) {
"use strict";
grunt.loadNpmTasks('grunt-babel');
grunt.loadNpmTasks('grunt-browserify');
grunt.initConfig({
"babel": {
options: {
sourceMap: false
},
dist: {
files: {
"lib/pentagine_babel.js": "lib/pentagine.js",
"demos/helicopter_game/PlayState_babel.js": "demos/helicopter_game/PlayState.js"
}
}
},
"browserify": {
dist: {
files: {
"lib/pentagine_browserified.js": "lib/pentagine_babel.js",
"demos/helicopter_game/PlayState_browserified.js": "demos/helicopter_game/PlayState_babel.js"
}
}
}
});
grunt.registerTask("default", ["babel", "browserify"]);
};
However, on the new Game( call, I get the following error:
Uncaught TypeError: undefined is not a function
As so, what I did was analyse the generated code by Babel and Browserify and I found this line on PlayState_browserified.js:
var Game = require("../../lib/pentagine_browserified.js").Game;
I decided to print the require output:
console.log(require("../../lib/pentagine_browserified.js"));
And it is nothing but an empty object. I decided to check out the pentagine_browserified.js file:
var Game = exports.Game = (function () {
It seems like it is correctly exporting the class, but for some other reason it is not being required on the other file.
Also, I'm sure the file is being required properly because changing the string "../../lib/pentagine_browserified.js" spits out a Not Found error, so it is going for the right file, that I'm sure about.
Browserify is meant to be fed a single "entry point" file, through which it recursively traverses all of your require statements, importing the code from other modules. So you should be require'ing the _babel.js versions of modules, not _browserified.js ones.
From the looks of it, you intend for your app's "entry point" to be demos/helicopter_game/PlayState_browserified.js, yeah? If that's the case:
In PlayState.js, change it to import {Game} from "../../lib/pentagine_babel.js";.
In Gruntfile.js, remove "lib/pentagine_browserified.js": "lib/pentagine_babel.js".
Works for me. Let me know if that suffices or I am misunderstanding your requirements here.
P.S. You can use babelify to avoid having separate Grunt tasks for Babel and Browserify. See my answer here for an example.
I had a slightly different file configuration, that gave me some difficulty to get the "require" syntax to work in Node, but this post gave me the hint on how to used the babel-ified version of the file name.
I am using WebStorm with the FileWatcher option set to Babel, and I have the FileWatcher configured to watch all files with suffix .jsx, and rename the compiled output file from {my_file}.jsx to {my_file}-compiled.js.
So in my test case, I have 2 files:
Person.jsx:
class Person { ... }
export { Person as default}
and another file that wants to import it:
Test.jsx:
var Person = require('./Person-compiled.js');
I couldn't get the "require" statement to find the module until I started the file path with './' and also add '-compiled.js' to properly specify the file name so that Node es5 could find the module.
I was also able to use the "import" syntax:
import Person from './Person-compiled.js';
Since I have set up my WebStorm project as a Node ES5 project, I have to run 'Test-compiled.js' (not 'Test.jsx').
Related
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.
I know this sounds as easy as using globals, but I'm not so sure.
Here's my case:
I have multiple files within /src directory of my React app, let's call them src/a.js, src/b.js,
every single of these files exports one object which I then use within my app:
./src/a.js:
export default {
filename: 'a',
foo: 'bar',
};
./src/b.js:
export default {
filename: 'b',
foo: 'bar',
blah: 'hah',
};
Now I have a command to check whether or not structure of objects within these files match (they are being changed by many developers multiple times a day), so when I do npm check in terminal it will return false for above input, because blah does not exist within two files.
My package.json looks like this:
"scripts": {
"check": "node check.js runCheck",
/.../
}
My question is: how the heck do I load these variables to compare them in package.json?
I have a file called:
./check.js:
function check(files) {
// checking files there
};
module.exports.check = check;
Approach #1 - imports
This is a build file, not part of the application itself, so when I try to do:
./check.js:
import a from './src/a';
import b from './src/b';
I'm getting:
SyntaxError: Cannot use import statement outside a module.
Approach #2 - require
This is going to cause trouble, because I'm using imports, not modules within my app, therefore doing:
./check.js:
const a = require('./src/a');
const b = require('./src/b');
Returns:
Error: Cannot find module './src/a'.
Of course I can't do module.exports within the a.js/b.js files, because they're part of my app and they should use exports, I've tried using both export and module.exports, but it does not work as well and looks shitty.
How do I tackle this? Should I load the files using some file loader, parse it as JSON an then compare? Or maybe there's an easier way?
You'll need to use something like esm (https://github.com/standard-things/esm) to run node with module support.
It should be as simple as:
npm install esm
Then update your package script to be:
"check": "node -r esm check.js runCheck",
Edit Btw, a very clear and well structured question.
In Node.js, is there any way to require file from the same package without using relative paths? For example, here's a snippet of code from ESLint.
const rule = require("../../../lib/rules/accessor-pairs"),
{ RuleTester } = require("../../../lib/rule-tester");
The fact that we have to walk all the way up the tree ../../../ to get to the root is not only annoying. It's also brittle, because I can't move the code without updating all of dependency references.
Yet somehow Node.js developers seem to have lived with it the past 10 years. I can't find anything in the docs or Stack Overflow that solves this problem other than a third-party dependency called require-self. Nor have I been able to find a definitive statement that using relative paths is the only non-hacky way for a file to require another file in the same module.
If there's a way to specify a path relative to the package root in ECMAScript Modules (ESM) but not CommonJS (CJS), or vice versa, I would like to know that as well.
To be clear, I don't think there is a solution to the problem. If there is great. Otherwise, I'm looking for confirmation with an authoritative reference.
Not necessarily the same package - if you are writing libraries this won't be useful, but if you are writing the "final application" - the thing that actually gets run:
One option:
If the NODE_PATH environment variable is set to a colon-delimited list of absolute paths, then Node.js will search those paths for modules if they are not found elsewhere.
So you can do any of:
1.
export NODE_PATH=.
node app.js
NODE_PATH=. node app.js
// app.js (or whatever your entry point is) before *any* require() calls
process.env.NODE_PATH = __dirname;
require('module').Module._initPaths();
Or, another way:
The Module object representing the entry script loaded when the Node.js process launched.
https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_require_main
So you can just do:
const rule = require.main.require("./lib/rules/accessor-pairs")
anytime you want it to be relative to the root (assuming that is how you have your project structured).
You can use the package name itself as a "symlink" to the package root.
Example - foo package imports bar script relative to the foo package root.
package.json
{
"dependencies": {
"foo": "file:./foo"
}
}
index.js
const foo = require('foo');
console.log(foo.bar); // prints "hello"
foo/index.js
const bar = require('foo/bar'); // import relative to the package root
module.exports = {
bar: bar
}
foo/bar.js
module.exports = 'hello';
If you use vscode then you're in luck - !!!! jsconfig.json in project root handles this masterfully for commonjs, es6, amd, umd, etc
The jsconfig.json file specifies the root files and the options for the features provided by the JavaScript language service.
jsconfig.json
{
"compilerOptions": {
"module": "commonjs",
"baseUrl": ".",
"paths": {
"#rules/*": ["path/to/lib/rules/"]
}
}
}
and then to use the alias:
const rule = require('#rules/accessor-pairs'),
{ RuleTester } = require('#rules/rule-tester');
Read more:
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/languages/jsconfig
I'm trying to create a custom transform for Jest, but running into a documentation roadblock which has me asking myself if I'm even on the right track.
Problem
I have a Rails project which is serving a Vue JS app. I want to write Jest tests for the JS app. In order to pass config variables from Rails to the app, I'm using ERB to template a small number of .js files. For example:
// in server-routes.js.erb
export default {
reports: '<%= Rails.application.config.relative_url_root %><%= Rails.application.routes.url_helpers.reports_path %>',
...
In my Webpack build for the Vue app, I use rails-erb-loader to preprocess the *.erb files before they get passed to the rest of the build process.
However, when I run my JS tests, Jest doesn't know anything about ERB loaders (reasonably enough). So my goal is to add a custom transform for Jest to convert the ERB files when running npm test.
Approach
I thought I might be able to use rails-erb-loader as a Jest transform:
// package.json
"jest": {
"moduleFileExtensions": [
"js",
"json",
"vue"
],
"moduleDirectories": [
"<rootDir>/node_modules"
],
"transform": {
".*\\.(vue)$": "vue-jest",
"^.+\\.js$": "babel-jest",
"^.+\\.js\\.erb$": "rails-erb-loader"
},
This doesn't work, however, because Jest transforms and Webpack loaders seemingly have different signatures. In particular, Jest expects a process function:
$ npm test
FAIL app/javascript/components/__tests__/dummy.test.js
● Test suite failed to run
TypeError: Jest: a transform must export a `process` function.
> 101 | import ServerRoutes from '../server-routes.js.erb';
| ^
at ScriptTransformer._getTransformer (node_modules/#jest/transform/build/ScriptTransformer.js:291:15)
at ScriptTransformer.transformSource (node_modules/#jest/transform/build/ScriptTransformer.js:353:28)
at ScriptTransformer._transformAndBuildScript (node_modules/#jest/transform/build/ScriptTransformer.js:457:40)
at ScriptTransformer.transform (node_modules/#jest/transform/build/ScriptTransformer.js:513:25)
at app/javascript/components/related-media.vue:101:1
at Object.<anonymous> (app/javascript/components/related-media.vue:232:3)
And this is where I get stuck, because I can't see where it's documented what the API and behaviour of a process function should be. In the documentation for the transform config option there's a single not very helpful example, and that's it as far as docs go, unless I've missed something.
I also note that babel-jest has a createTransformer function which sounds like it might be helpful, or at least illuminating, but again I can't find any docs on what it does.
If anyone has pointers on the details of creating custom Jest transforms, or at least some better docs, that would be great! Or, if I'm going about this the wrong way, what should I be doing?
You could look at ts-jest. https://github.com/kulshekhar/ts-jest/blob/master/src/ts-jest-transformer.ts. It is in typescript so is typed
Alternatively find the jest code that initiates the transform process. I don't think it is that difficult to find.
I think the transformer is either created with class constructor or via the factory function createTransformer.
From my understanding for the ts-jest-transformer and jest-erb-transformer it seems you need to export an object with public process or to export createTransformer methods which create a transformer object that have a process method.
a simple code example that runs before ts-jest
transform-example.js
const tsJest = require('ts-jest');
const t = tsJest.createTransformer();
module.exports = {
process(fileContent, filePath, jestConfig) {
const res = t.process(fileContent, filePath, jestConfig)
console.log(filePath);
return res;
}
}
jest.config.js
module.exports = {
transform: {
'^.+\\.tsx?$': ['<rootDir>/transform-example']
}
}
running this would run typescript tests (just like ts-jest) and log all the file paths transformed in the test.
I'm trying to figure out how to perform dynamic import of classes in ES6 one the server side (node.js with Babel).
I would like to have some functionalities similar to what reflection offers in Java. The idea is to import all the classes in a specific folder and instanciate them dynamically.
So for example I could have multiple classes declared in a folder like the one below :
export default class MyClass {
constructor(somevar) {
this._somevar = somevar
}
//...
//some more instance level functions here
}
and then somewhere else in my app's code I could have a function that finds out all the classes in a specific folder and tries to instanciate them :
//somewhere else in my app
instanciationFunction(){
//find all the classes in a specific folder
var classFiles = glob.sync(p + '/path_to_classes/**/*.js', {
nodir: true
});
_.each(classFiles, async function (file) {
console.log(file);
var TheClass = import(file);
var instance = new TheClass();
//and then do whatever I want with that new instance
});
}
I've tried doing it with require but I get errors. Apparently the constructor cant be found.
Any idea would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
ES module definitions are declarative, and the current direction tools are taking is the path where dependencies are determined during parse (via static analysis), waaay before any of the code is executed. This means dynamic and conditional imports go against the said path. It's not like in Node where imports are determined on execution, upon executing require.
If you want dynamic, runtime imports, consider taking a look at SystemJS. If you're familiar with RequireJS, it takes the same concept, but expands it to multiple module formats, including ES6. It has SystemJS.import which appears to do what you want, plus handles the path resolution that you're currently doing.
Alternatively, if your intention is to shed off excess code, consider using Rollup. It will analyze code for you and only include code that's actually used. That way, you don't need to manually do conditional loading.
You need to preprocess with babel, because they are not yet a part of node (for that matter, neither are static imports - node uses require).
https://github.com/airbnb/babel-plugin-dynamic-import-node
steps:
pre
npm i -D babel-cli or npm i -D babel
1
npm i -D babel-plugin-dynamic-import-node
2
.babelrc
{
"plugins": ["dynamic-import-node"]
}
ready, go!
babel-node test_import.js for babel-cli, or for raw babel:
a
(edit) package.json
"scripts": {
"pretest": "babel test_imports.js -o dist/test_imports.js",
"test": "node dist/test_imports.js"
//...
b
node test
I had the same usecase and i managed to dynamically load and instantiate default exported classes using:
const c = import("theClass.js")
const i = new c.default();
using node v16.4.0