Refactor webpack configuration to improve library exports

[KD1712]

Changed the webpack configuration to specify library as 'UpgradeClient' and libraryExport as 'default' to improve library exports. This ensures that users can directly access the UpgradeClient class without needing to access it through additional objects. Also updated the globalObject to 'this' for better compatibility across environments.

[KD1712]

@bcb37 Here 'output.library' is removed from the webpack config to get direct access to the modules. Should we keep it this way for easier module access, or do we keep the library name for namespacing?

[VivekFitkariwala]

@KD1712 can you check the PR? There are some extra change.

[VivekFitkariwala]

There are four variations where the same change needs to be done. Can you refactor the code and extract the common code?

[danoswaltCL]

@zackcl can you verify this is the change that was needed in demo app for vanilla js when you get back?

[danoswaltCL]

hey @zackcl this is related to a very old issue that you opened to help (#150), is this what you were looking for?

[zackcl]

@danoswaltCL I will check this now.

[zackcl]

I tried the client library on this branch, and I was able to create the UpgradeClient class directly with const upClient = new UpgradeClient(userId, hostUrl, context);, which is what I expected.

However, while the clientlibs/js/dist/browser/index.js script works fine, the clientlibs/js/dist/browser-lite/index.js script does not.

When using the browser-lite version, I get the error: Please provide a valid httpClient, or use the default version of the library with our default httpClient.

You can see the code I wrote for testing the client library here: https://jsfiddle.net/my93L5bg/.

[ppratikcr7]

I tried the client library on this branch, and I was able to create the UpgradeClient class directly with const upClient = new UpgradeClient(userId, hostUrl, context);, which is what I expected.

However, while the clientlibs/js/dist/browser/index.js script works fine, the clientlibs/js/dist/browser-lite/index.js script does not.

When using the browser-lite version, I get the error: Please provide a valid httpClient, or use the default version of the library with our default httpClient.

You can see the code I wrote for testing the client library here: https://jsfiddle.net/my93L5bg/.

Yeah, I do get the same error. For dist/browser on dev branch build, I had to update the apiVersion to v5 to make it work and get assignment. But doing the same change with index.js for dist/browser-lite still gives the above error.

[ppratikcr7]

@zackcl I have updated the fiddle, we need to provide the httpClient object as options in the UpgradeClient so that it returns the assignment for browser-lite distribution. For browser distribution you dont need to pass this httpClient object.

[zackcl]

@ppratikcr7 Thanks, so should we expect users to add this code when using "browser-lite"? I'm not sure if this is worth including in our documentation in case they use "browser-lite". If it's difficult to support "browser-lite", maybe we can just document that the lite version is not supported for JavaScript apps at the moment, and fix this later.

let httpClient = {
      doGet: (path, options) => {
        return fetch(path, options).
        then(response => response.json());
      },
      doPost: (path, body, options) => {
        body = JSON.stringify(body);
        return fetch(path, { method: "POST", body, ...options }).
        then(response => response.json());
      },
      doPatch: (path, body, options) => {
        body = JSON.stringify(body);
        return fetch(path, { method: "PATCH", body, ...options }).
        then(response => response.json());
      },
    };
    const options = { httpClient : httpClient }
    const upClient = new UpgradeClient(userId, hostUrl, context, options);
    ```

[zackcl]

I will review the updated fiddle soon.

[zackcl]

@ppratikcr7 Your fiddle worked fine with the custom HTTP client. I've just created a PR (#1862) suggesting the use of a default HTTP client for the lite version as well. Please feel free to check it out.

By the way, I had to change the version in clientlibs/js/package.json from "6.0.0" to "5.2.0" in the current dev branch; otherwise, I got an error. I'm not sure if this is because we don't have v6 endpoints yet.

[danoswaltCL]

@ppratikcr7 can you take over this PR and look at @zackcl 's comment, then we can get this in for 6.0

[ppratikcr7]

@ppratikcr7 can you take over this PR and look at @zackcl 's comment, then we can get this in for 6.0

@zackcl Can you reapprove this and merge?