Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
build: updates to support Node ESM #3287
build: updates to support Node ESM #3287
Changes from all commits
e1a4e1b
b412357
28fe304
791528e
78e68b9
2badeb8
3ce47f2
d68bc53
101daea
0b7fbd1
f7c0b41
78f8d82
699f8e6
73abf12
5f280cb
57a51ff
7b89fb3
8e76502
1bb87fb
04c8ec6
9eda9e5
8a8e373
dd68577
22c0060
773aee6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately we will have to switch back to old JSX transform because its ESM support only landed in 18 and the team does not plan to backport it to older version <- facebook/react#20304
Unless we drop the support for React 16 and 17, we cannot leverage the new JSX transform in order to support Node ESM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise errors like following will show up and it is dumb for us to add
.js
file extension to every single line of themThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Simple ESM test to prevent regression
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is nice!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Similar to your lodash idea, maybe we could reexport the radix imports from a single file, to prevent adding this workaround to primitive/component files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would extract this to a util function in the follow up PR along with lodash
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have to use name space imports for
radix
components because it does not support Node ESM and so Node will reference its CJS build(main
field) instead(Node does not knowmodule
field). Name space imports works in both format.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another reason to get rid of radix when we can...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Totally agree
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just curious, is this eslint comment avoidable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It does not allow me to do that because there is a chance
sanitizedDropdown.default
isundefined
andundefined
is inferred asany
type which falls into this unsafe assignmentThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To add to this point, writing in this way is the less eslint comment way I found 😈
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Understood. For my understanding, when will
sanitizedDropdown.default
be defined vs undefined?That conditional was confusing to me, because I was thinking that it would always be one or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh radix packages do not fully support Node ESM and it may be imported as CJS format in some cases. When the radix module was imported as CJS via name space import, the
default
will be defined. Its meaningful content will be place intodefault
({ default: <module.exports> }) while an ESM name space import will just give you the exact exports.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, makes sense to me now, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@zchenwei
Can we add a comment for this? I think your explanation is great, but would like to help out future us who are confused. :)(nevermind, comment you added is sufficient)But we could also add a comment linking the the radix issue which could allow us to removed this workaround?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I already have a comment there. Refresh? I would have a follow up PR to extract this workaround to a util function, I do not want to add too much work in this PR