Update some references to use ESM rather than CJS #17868
Conversation
☁️ Nx Cloud ReportCI is running/has finished running commands for commit becc386. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights. 📂 See all runs for this branch ✅ Successfully ran 1 targetSent with 💌 from NxCloud. |
| import { drawSelectedElement } from '@storybook/addon-measure/dist/esm/box-model/visualizer'; | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line import/no-extraneous-dependencies | ||
| import { init, destroy } from '@storybook/addon-measure/dist/cjs/box-model/canvas'; | ||
| import { init, destroy } from '@storybook/addon-measure/dist/esm/box-model/canvas'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These imports will likely break over time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I am not sure what's going on here exactly (cc @winkerVSbecks) but I just figure this is strictly better, anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To test the addon I call an internal method from within stories. Instead of importing from the source, I ended up importing from the built addon. Probably a mistake. I can submit a PR to make this import relative.
| @@ -1 +1 @@ | |||
| module.exports = require('./dist/cjs/index'); | |||
| module.exports = require('./dist/esm/index'); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we know why lib/core/client.js exists? It seems strange to just re-export the index...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's only for backwards compatibility since @storybook/core was refactored into core-client and core-server in a minor release (6.2) and we didn't know what might point at the @storybook/core/client and @storybook/core/server entry points
What I did
@IanVS found some places in the codebase where web-based entries end up using CJS built files. These seem like mistakes, we should always use ESM on web, AFAIK.
How to test
Hopefully any problems will get picked up by automated testing.