v0.14.4
-
Adjust esbuild's handling of
default
exports and the__esModule
marker (#532, #1591, #1719)This change requires some background for context. Here's the history to the best of my understanding:
When the ECMAScript module
import
/export
syntax was being developed, the CommonJS module format (used in Node.js) was already widely in use. Because of this the export name calleddefault
was given special a syntax. Instead of writingimport { default as foo } from 'bar'
you can just writeimport foo from 'bar'
. The idea was that when ECMAScript modules (a.k.a. ES modules) were introduced, you could import existing CommonJS modules using the new import syntax for compatibility. Since CommonJS module exports are dynamic while ES module exports are static, it's not generally possible to determine a CommonJS module's export names at module instantiation time since the code hasn't been evaluated yet. So the value ofmodule.exports
is just exported as thedefault
export and the specialdefault
import syntax gives you easy access tomodule.exports
(i.e.const foo = require('bar')
is the same asimport foo from 'bar'
).However, it took a while for ES module syntax to be supported natively by JavaScript runtimes, and people still wanted to start using ES module syntax in the meantime. The Babel JavaScript compiler let you do this. You could transform each ES module file into a CommonJS module file that behaved the same. However, this transformation has a problem: emulating the
import
syntax accurately as described above means thatexport default 0
andimport foo from 'bar'
will no longer line up when transformed to CommonJS. The codeexport default 0
turns intomodule.exports.default = 0
and the codeimport foo from 'bar'
turns intoconst foo = require('bar')
, meaningfoo
is0
before the transformation butfoo
is{ default: 0 }
after the transformation.To fix this, Babel sets the property
__esModule
to true as a signal to itself when it converts an ES module to a CommonJS module. Then, when importing adefault
export, it can know to use the value ofmodule.exports.default
instead ofmodule.exports
to make sure the behavior of the CommonJS modules correctly matches the behavior of the original ES modules. This fix has been widely adopted across the ecosystem and has made it into other tools such as TypeScript and even esbuild.However, when Node.js finally released their ES module implementation, they went with the original implementation where the
default
export is alwaysmodule.exports
, which broke compatibility with the existing ecosystem of ES modules that had been cross-compiled into CommonJS modules by Babel. You now have to either add or remove an additional.default
property depending on whether your code needs to run in a Node environment or in a Babel environment, which created an interoperability headache. In addition, JavaScript tools such as esbuild now need to guess whether you want Node-style or Babel-styledefault
imports. There's no way for a tool to know with certainty which one a given file is expecting and if your tool guesses wrong, your code will break.This release changes esbuild's heuristics around
default
exports and the__esModule
marker to attempt to improve compatibility with Webpack and Node, which is what most packages are tuned for. The behavior changes are as follows:Old behavior:
-
If an
import
statement is used to load a CommonJS file and a)module.exports
is an object, b)module.exports.__esModule
is truthy, and c) the propertydefault
exists inmodule.exports
, then esbuild would set thedefault
export tomodule.exports.default
(like Babel). Otherwise thedefault
export was set tomodule.exports
(like Node). -
If a
require
call is used to load an ES module file, the returned module namespace object had the__esModule
property set to true. This behaved as if the ES module had been converted to CommonJS via a Babel-compatible transformation. -
The
__esModule
marker could inconsistently appear on module namespace objects (i.e.import * as
) when writing pure ESM code. Specifically, if a module namespace object was materialized then the__esModule
marker was present, but if it was optimized away then the__esModule
marker was absent. -
It was not allowed to create an ES module export named
__esModule
. This avoided generating code that might break due to the inconsistency mentioned above, and also avoided issues with duplicate definitions of__esModule
.
New behavior:
-
If an
import
statement is used to load a CommonJS file and a)module.exports
is an object, b)module.exports.__esModule
is truthy, and c) the file name does not end in either.mjs
or.mts
and thepackage.json
file does not contain"type": "module"
, then esbuild will set thedefault
export tomodule.exports.default
(like Babel). Otherwise thedefault
export is set tomodule.exports
(like Node).Note that this means the
default
export may now be undefined in situations where it previously wasn't undefined. This matches Webpack's behavior so it should hopefully be more compatible.Also note that this means import behavior now depends on the file extension and on the contents of
package.json
. This also matches Webpack's behavior to hopefully improve compatibility. -
If a
require
call is used to load an ES module file, the returned module namespace object has the__esModule
property set totrue
. This behaves as if the ES module had been converted to CommonJS via a Babel-compatible transformation. -
If an
import
statement orimport()
expression is used to load an ES module, the__esModule
marker should now never be present on the module namespace object. This frees up the__esModule
export name for use with ES modules. -
It's now allowed to use
__esModule
as a normal export name in an ES module. This property will be accessible to other ES modules but will not be accessible to code that loads the ES module usingrequire
, where they will observe the property set totrue
instead.
-