-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Added edge-light and workerd conditions
#3215
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| '@emotion/use-insertion-effect-with-fallbacks': minor | ||
| '@emotion/primitives': minor | ||
| '@emotion/styled': minor | ||
| '@emotion/cache': minor | ||
| '@emotion/react': minor | ||
| '@emotion/utils': minor | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Added `edge-light` and `workerd` conditions to `package.json` manifest to better serve users using Vercel Edge and Cloudflare Workers. |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Do other libraries not use their browser builds for Service Workers?
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.
No idea, there are no great guidelines for this and various tools are not exactly overly consistent and explicit when it comes to differentiating between browser and worker builds.
Webpack 5 docs have always suggested using the
workercondition for (web)workers... so that's what we went with here.But I'm also not sure if I have understood the intention behind your question. Could you elaborate?
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.
What we found in the past is that some tools would pick up the browser condition when targeting workers so we had to use some earlier condition (
worker) to "shadow" over thebrowsercondition. Ideally, it would just fall through to the default condition and use thatThere 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 wondering if it makes more sense to use browser builds. But if the browser builds access the DOM, they're not suited for Service Workers. Given that there's little guidance/standardization around this topic we'll probably just have to find out.
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.
Ye, so that's the main distinction that we have here -
#is-browsercould be called#can-use-dom. That's the only thing we care about atm. So we can't use the browser builds because they assume being able to access DOM