feat(core): better module not found handling

[clarkdo]

Types of changes

• Bug fix (a non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (a non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Description

Fix nuxt/eslint-plugin-nuxt#87 fix nuxt/create-nuxt-app#423

If user installed dependecities with prod flag like yarn install --production or NODE_ENV=production yarn install, building (yarn nuxt build) will failed if buildModules exists in devDependecies.

This pr is checking the module existence and also print an info message for avoding unpected installation from user side.

@pi0 The info message is my own language, please feel free to make it better.

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly. (PR: #)
• I have added tests to cover my changes (if not applicable, please state why)
• All new and existing tests are passing.

[clarkdo]

Failed building seems related to actions/cache#208

[pi0]

However, it is more a DX improvement, really cool idea @clarkdo 👍 I will update the message and also add a check for modules.

Update: Double checking issue, yarn nuxt build does require buildModules and devDependencies regardless of environment. Silently ignoring modules for production build can cause unwanted issues if the package is not installed.

The build phase requires devDependencies like @nuxt/builder. it is confusing naming of NPM. We were first using devModules to prevent this confusion.

I think we need to update programmatic usage to use new getNuxt/getBuilder exports that properly set _start flag to exclude buildModules for the production run. Meanwhile, we can add a patch to silently ignore only if not using standard CLI for the build via _cli flag check and also use a better message for DX.

Update:

Error when using nuxt build and missing buildModules:

Error for programmatic users:

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #7079 into dev will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 73.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             dev    #7079      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   62.7%   62.74%   +0.03%     
=========================================
  Files         84       84              
  Lines       3376     3390      +14     
  Branches     920      924       +4     
=========================================
+ Hits        2117     2127      +10     
- Misses      1013     1016       +3     
- Partials     246      247       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
#unittests	62.74% <73.33%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/core/src/module.js	94.25% <73.33%> (-4.38%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 75a870d...b25cef0. Read the comment docs.

[Austio]

@pi0 would you all consider raising an exception in the event that this happens, could even be a configuration?

A good example,

• you have a local module foo that you are developing and load that module properly
• in the module, then require a file someNonexistingFIle that doesn't exist
• you get an error that the foo module was not able to be found

[pi0]

@Austio Error is thrown not found + not not found unless using programmatic mode. Would you please make a simple repo for your example?