feat: add utils packages type module #2731
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new feature by adding a type module to the utils package. This change is aimed at enhancing the module system within the utils package. Changes
|
|
[e2e-test-warn] The title of the Pull request should look like "fix(vue-renderless): [action-menu, alert] fix xxx bug". Please make sure you've read our contributing guide |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/utils/package.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/utils/package.json (1)
7-7: Verify ESM compatibility across the package ecosystemAdding
"type": "module"is a significant change that affects how modules are imported/exported throughout the package. This change requires careful verification:
- Ensure all .js files use ESM syntax (import/export)
- Verify ESM compatibility of dependencies
- Update documentation for module usage
Let's verify the current module usage patterns and potential breaking changes:
✅ Verification successful
ESM compatibility verified - no CommonJS patterns found
The verification shows that the codebase is already using ESM syntax consistently:
- No CommonJS patterns (
require(),module.exports,exports.) were found in the utils package- All files use proper ESM
import/exportstatements- The package uses modern tooling (Vite) that fully supports ESM
The change to add
"type": "module"aligns with the existing codebase structure and won't cause compatibility issues.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check current import/export patterns and potential CommonJS usage # Check for CommonJS require/exports usage that needs migration echo "Checking for CommonJS patterns that need migration..." rg -g '*.{js,ts}' -A 2 'require\(|module\.exports|exports\.' packages/utils/ # Check import/export patterns echo "Checking current import/export patterns..." rg -g '*.{js,ts}' -A 2 'import .* from|export .*' packages/utils/ # Check if xss package supports ESM echo "Checking xss package ESM support..." cat package.json | jq -r '.dependencies.xss' > /dev/null && \ npm view xss typeLength of output: 7358
| @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ | |||
| "description": "nanoid console xss", | |||
| "author": "", | |||
| "license": "ISC", | |||
| "type": "module", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Document the module system change
This change requires documentation updates to guide package users:
- Update README with ESM usage examples
- Document any breaking changes for CommonJS users
- Add migration guide if needed
# Add to README.md or MIGRATION.md:
+## Module System
+
+This package uses ECMAScript modules (ESM). Import its contents using:
+
+```js
+import { someUtil } from '@opentiny/utils';
+```
+
+### Migration from CommonJS
+
+If you were using CommonJS require():
+
+```js
+// Old (CommonJS)
+const { someUtil } = require('@opentiny/utils');
+
+// New (ESM)
+import { someUtil } from '@opentiny/utils';
+```💡 Codebase verification
Test coverage needed for ESM module configuration
Based on the verification:
- The package is configured as ESM with
"type": "module"in package.json - Vite is configured to output ESM format (
formats: ['es']) - However, there are no test files or test scripts found in the package
- The TypeScript configuration couldn't be parsed, suggesting potential issues
Action items needed:
- Add test scripts to package.json for running tests
- Create test files covering ESM imports scenarios
- Add TypeScript configuration to ensure proper module resolution
- Include integration tests with common bundlers
🔗 Analysis chain
Add test coverage for module resolution
Ensure the build and integration testing covers:
- ESM imports in different environments
- TypeScript integration
- Bundler compatibility (Vite, webpack, etc.)
Let me gather more information about the test setup and coverage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify TypeScript and build configuration
# Check TypeScript module resolution settings
echo "Checking TypeScript configuration..."
fd tsconfig.json packages/utils/ --exec cat {} \; | jq '.compilerOptions.module, .compilerOptions.moduleResolution'
# Check Vite build output format
echo "Checking Vite build configuration..."
fd vite.config.ts packages/utils/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 693
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for test files and their configuration
echo "Checking test files and configuration..."
fd test.ts packages/utils/ -E "*.test.ts" -E "*.spec.ts" -E "vitest.config.ts"
echo "Checking package.json test scripts..."
cat packages/utils/package.json | jq '.scripts | with_entries(select(.key | contains("test")))'
echo "Checking test imports..."
rg "import.*from.*@opentiny/utils" -A 2 --glob "*.test.ts" --glob "*.spec.ts"
Length of output: 494
PR
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit