So after a bit of digging around the diferences from Export and Imports declared from the package.json file I was wondering what is the best use case for both?
For example the following fields:
"name": "node-api",
"exports": {
".": "./application.js",
"./config/*": "./config/*.js",
"./controllers": "./controllers/index.js",
"./helpers/*": "./helpers/*.js",
"./models": "./models/index.js",
"./routes": "./routes/index.js"
},
"imports": {
"#config/*": "./config/*.js",
"#controllers": "./controllers/index.js",
"#helpers/*": "./helpers/*.js",
"#models": "./models/index.js",
"#routes": "./routes/index.js"
}
And then each of the following with their output in the main JS file:
import routes from './routes/index.js'; // works
import routes from './routes'; // error - ERR_UNSUPPORTED_DIR_IMPORT
import routes from 'node-api/routes'; // works (with the package name)
import routes from '#routes'; // works (without the package name but need the #)
So why not just use the imports field?
In my opinion seems friendlier than to type your package name every time you want to import your own file.
Based on the NODE JS official docs (https://nodejs.org/api/packages.html) it says the following: "The "exports" field allows defining the entry points of a package when imported by name loaded either via a node_modules lookup or a self-reference to its own name.".
Then for the imports field says the following: "it is possible to define internal package import maps that only apply to import specifiers from within the package itself."
From my testing to reference my relative (my own created) files I just use the imports field so that I don't need to type in the package for every import that I want.
So long story short, when is it best to use exports and imports field and in my case does it make sense to use only imports?
exports is for consumers, while imports is for the internal usage (it even uses the same prefix as private class fields). If you aren't publishing a package, then you don't need to care about exports. Its main usecase is to organize the API surface of the module without spilling all its implementation guts on the consumer.
Related
I didn't find anything on Google but I'm wondering if there's a "best practise" of structuring an ES6 project in terms of directories and module exports.
Currently I do have two different ways in mind:
Using an index.js for every module and export everything:
app.js
modules/
ModuleName/
ModuleFile.js
index.js
ModuleFile.js would look something like export class ModuleFile { }, the index.js would be simply
export * from 'ModuleFile'
This makes it possible to import files with import {ModuleFile} from 'modules/ModuleName'. Readable, but requires an index.js for every module, even if the module has just one single file.
Second approach would be without using index.js files, but that would mean import statements would become slightly redundant import {ModuleFile} from 'modules/ModuleName/ModuleFile'.
Are there any best practises on this topic?
Your approach seems fine, I don't see a problem with it. In two different projects I've worked (different companies) it was the pattern used.
You could also put the ModuleFile.js content directly in index.js:
app.js
modules/
ModuleName/
index.js
Or create a file directly for a module:
app.js
modules/
moduleName.js
In cases only a "file" is necessary. The evident problem is that changes or the growth of the module may force this structure to change. There would also be an inconsistence in terms of structure with other modules.
Is there is a performance or behavioural difference between importing from an index file or importing individual modules?
For example, with an index file (#/modules/user) of...
import routes from './routes'
import controller from './controller'
const user = {
routes,
controller
}
export default user
If I import just the routes from that file...
import user from '#/modules/user'
const routes = Router()
routes.use('/user', user.routes)
Is this any different to just importing the routes individually from their own file (#/modules/user/routes)? Does the controller get imported as it's in the user object?
import userRoutes from '#/modules/user/routes'
const routes = Router()
routes.use('/user', userRoutes)
There are currently no native ES modules in Node.js. The actual difference depends on the toolchain. When the application is built with Webpack/Rollup (a minifier is potentially needed too) and configured to use ES modules internally, tree-shaking can be applied. This is best case scenario.
This would be a case for tree-shaking if there were a reexporting module:
import routes from './routes'
import controller from './controller'
export {
routes,
controller
}
And it was imported like
import { routes } from '#/modules/user'
However, the cases in the original post are different. In one case, once user constant is imported, it's impossible to remove unused controllers property from it with tree-shaking. In another case, #/modules/user/controller module remains unused and doesn't need tree-shaking. It will be ignored even if the application is configured to use CommonJS modules.
So yes, it's possible for ES modules to import only modules that are in use, and this heavily depends on actual code and project configuration.
Client-side applications primarily benefit from tree-shaking because it affects bundle size. This concern shouldn't be taken into account in server-side Node.js application - unless unused module imports massive amount of third-party modules that aren't used anywhere else.
Currently you can only use the import syntax using transpilers(converters from one syntax to another) as it is not yet natively supported by engines. Lets take babel for example.
Babel converts the import to CommonJS style code that can work within Node.js. While the syntax is conformant to ES6, the implementation is not.
Babel converts the syntax into CommonJS, evaluating the imported code before determining what is being imported. With ES6, the imports and exports are determined before the code is evaluated.
With future support of es6 imports inside node, importing a specific function inside the code will only return that exported function, without evaluating the whole script in the targeted file.
Currently they work the same since transpilers convert them to traditional node require syntax.
However, you can use webpack Treeshaking to remove unused code from the output file, this way they are almost identical in behavior.
The # syntax
The # syntax depends on the module loader or module bundler. The module loader is not part of the ECMAScript spec. You most likely have something like babel-plugin-root-import in your webpack/babel config.
Basically it means from the root of the project.. it avoids having to write things like import Component from '../../../../components/component'. in this case, it has nothing to do with partial imports.
I've been working on creating a small library of React components for use in several other projects. I am publishing the package internally (using a private GitHub repository) and then including in another project. However, when I go to import from a subdirectory of the package I am not able to do so as the paths don't match.
The projects using the package all utilize webpack to bundle/transpile code as I am trying to avoid doing any building in the component library if possible.
Directory Structure
- package.json
- src/
- index.js
- Button/
- index.js
- Button.jsx
- ButtonGroup.jsx
- Header/
- index.js
- Header.jsx (default export)
package.json
...
"main": "./src/index.js",
"scripts": "",
...
src/Button/index.js
import Button from './Button';
import ButtonGroup from './ButtonGroup';
export default Button;
export { Button, ButtonGroup};
src/index.js
Is this file actually necessary if only importing from subdirectories?
import Button from './Button';
import ButtonGroup from './Button/ButtonGroup';
import Header from './Header';
export { Button, ButtonGroup, Header };
Other Project
// This project is responsible for building/transpiling after importing
import { Button, ButtonGroup } from 'components-library/Button';
Example
Material-UI is a library of React components that is used by requiring in the following fashion: import { RadioButtonGroup } from 'material-ui/RadioButton. I've tried to figure out how this works for them but to no avail yet.
Similar Questions
How would I import a module within an npm package subfolder with webpack?
This is very nearly the correct approach I require, except that the import path used there involved the src/ directory, which I am trying to avoid (should be component-library/item, not component-library/src/item (which does work currently though))
Publishing Flat NPM Packages
This is exactly what I want except that I was hoping to not have a "build" phase in the package (rely on importing locations to build/transpile)
Questions
Can I skip the src/ directory somehow in the import path?
Can I skip any type of build phase in the package (so developers don't have to build before committing)?
How does a package similar to material-ui handle this?
Can I skip the src/ directory somehow in the import path?
Yes. Using the package.json "exports" field, which should be supported by Webpack in a near future (see this issue), but has already been supported by Node since Node 12 LTS following the Bare Module Specifier Resolution proposal:
package.json
...
"main": "./src/index.js",
"type": "module",
...
"exports": {
"./Button": "./src/Button/index.js",
"./Header": "./src/Header/index.js"
},
...
Now, the following code:
// This project is responsible for building/transpiling after importing
import { Button, ButtonGroup } from 'components-library/Button';
should be translated to:
import { Button, ButtonGroup } from 'components-library/src/Button/index.js';
which should correctly import the requested modules.
Caveat
Now, it would certainly be tempting to try a simpler version like:
...
"exports": {
"./Button": "./src/Button/",
"./Header": "./src/Header/"
},
...
so as the usual import statement
import { ... } from 'components-library/Button';
gets translated to
import { ... } from 'components-library/src/Button';
This looks nice, but it will not work in this case, because your submodules don't have each their own package.json file but rely on their index.js file to be found.
/!\ Unlike in CommonJS, there is no automatic searching for index.js or index.mjs or for file extensions.
src/index.js - Is this file actually necessary if only importing from subdirectories?
I don't think so, but you can keep it if you want.
Can I skip any type of build phase in the package?
Using the "exports" field does not require you to transpile your code.
The answer may depend on how you installed your components library. If you did it via either npm install <git-host>:<git-user>/<repo-name> or npm install <git repo url>,
You should be able to import {Button} from 'component-library/Button' as is, according to your first linked question. Similar to Node's require() resolution, Webpack should resolve subdirectories within component-library relative to component-library's entry point. You can find the docs on customizing the resolution behavior via the webpack.config.resolve property. material-ui seems to rely on resolving subdirectory imports from the module entry directory.
To distribute an ES module library, there's no need for building before distribution. However, projects such as create-react-app may need a pre-transpiled version.
Alternately, you can write import {Button} from 'components-library'.
Webpack will trace the dependencies back through each index without a fuss.
you have to install babel-plugin-module-resolver package
Specify the package relative path in your .babelrc file alias like this
{
"plugins": [
["module-resolver", {
"alias": {
"components-library": "./node_module/components-library"
}
}]
]
}
then you can import subdir of npm package like this
import { Button, ButtonGroup } from 'components-library/Button';
One of the possible solutions there is webpack aliasing system.
You can create another project, call it for example 'app-aliases', so your aliases will be reusable.
This project will has one js file with all of your packages paths:
const path = require('path');
module.exports = {
'#components': path.resolve(__dirname, 'node_modules/components-library/src'),
'#another': path.resolve(__dirname, 'node_modules/any/path/you/want'),
}
And then add it to the webpack configuration in any project which will be responsible for building/transpiling:
webpack.config.js
const appAliases = require('app-aliases');
const config = {
...
resolve: {
alias: {
...appAlises
}
}
}
In the runtime code you will be able to use it like this:
import {Button} from '#components/Button';
import {Something} from '#another'
If you are using typescript you will need to add the same aliases to the paths tsconfig property.
So answers to your questions are:
Yes, you can use any path in aliases
Yes, it is not necessary to build all of your projects
I see that now mui uses imports from directi packages (core for example), see https://material-ui.com/components/radio-buttons/ there is import Radio from '#material-ui/core/Radio';. But I hope they using re-export that I described below.
Also about node.js resolution mechanism.
When you import some library it tries to find node_modules/some-library/package.json and then main property inside it. This property should lead to your main entry point. Usually it is src/index.js (you should set it in package.json if it is no there yet). In this file you can re-export anything you want from internals file structure and will be able to use it without the full path.
Please see this repo for some examples.
I'am an angular developer never used react but what I could tell that material-ui are using monorepo where same concept exists in angular where we create one workspace and this workspace hold multiple project/packages as named in react. for more info Workspaces with Yarn
Material-ui using fake paths in tsconfig to make it appears like src folder doesn't exists this from the git you provided: tsconfig.json
This is possible but requires publishing a curated dist folder rather then the root of your project.
The whole thing is rather simple if you understand how module resolution works, and you just need a small script to prepare your distribution.
Lest I repeat all the details here, please see my answer for Importing from subfolders for a javascript package.
So the ember-cli-builds.js file clearly states
// If the library that you are including contains AMD or ES6
// modules that you would like to import into your application
// please specify an object with the list of modules as keys
// along with the exports of each module as its value.
I'm importing regular javascript files this way
app.import('vendor/global.js');
but what is the proper way to "specify an object with the list of modules as keys along with the exports of each module as it's value"?
At the "AMD Javascript modules" heading of the guides, it is described like that:
Provide the asset path as the first argument, and the list of modules
and exports as the second.
app.import('bower_components/ic-ajax/dist/named-amd/main.js', {
exports: {
'ic-ajax': [
'default',
'defineFixture',
'lookupFixture',
'raw',
'request'
]
}
});
You can now import them in your app. (e.g. import { raw as icAjaxRaw } from 'ic-ajax';)
Reference From Guide
The selector answer is for older ember, pre ember-auto-import (webpack), and pre Ember Octane.
In modern ember, after npm installing a package, you'll be able to import directly from that package.
Example:
npm install qs
then anywhere in your app
import qs from 'qs';
related, it is recommended to avoid placing files in the vendor folder that you want to integrate with the module system. the vendor exists outside of the bundle, so if you have a standalone module, you can place it in your app folder, maybe under some descriptive folder:
app/external-modules/global.js, allowing you to import from it like:
import * as globalStuff from '<my-app>/external-modules/global';
I'm currently learning react and thus es6/es7 and webpack.
Coming from a largely python background I'm annoyed by the folder sensitive path declarations for import statements, i.e. the use of ../../ in import statements. This means if I move a file to a different directory, i need to change the import statements declared in the file.
Python's import statement doesn't have this issue. I'd like to mimic that behavior
(search first a particular directory for this path, if not search this other base directory)
e.g. if i have the directory structure
myApp
components
component1.jsx
stores
store1.jsx
views
view1.jsx
node_modules
react
etc
in my view1.jsx I don't want to write
import Component1 from '../components/component1'
I want to write
import Component1 from 'components/component1'
or maybe even
import Component1 from 'myApp/components/component1'
just to make sure I don't have name collisions with some npm package I may be using.
What is the correct way of accomplishing this in webpack? Is it using alias?
I ended up following #zerkms recommendation. resolve.modulesDirectories is the way to go.
I wrote a loader to accomplish this, https://www.npmjs.com/package/future-require-loader. It will autoload a path anywhere three underscores surround a partial file path ___filename.js___. it also allows folder paths: ___folder/filename.js___. it will attempt to match the first file path that includes the string so you will want to include folders if there could be a conflict.