Node.js Loaders Team Meeting 2023-09-26 #164

Activity

1. mhdawson

   self-assigned this

   on Sep 22, 2023
2. JakobJingleheimer commented on Sep 25, 2023

   

   JakobJingleheimer

   on Sep 25, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   @GeoffreyBooth in a chat we had a few days ago, you mentioned what I think is a material objection to a fundamental piece (a file extension map) of nodejs/node#49704. Should we discuss that here? I'd like to understand the root of your concern, and how it might be addressed, because I think what Antoine and I have roughed out is essential to this feature.

   RE pointing to a guide, I think that's okay for v0.5 but doesn't fit the bill for a final feature (everyone having to look something up does not seem "first class", which is the mandate of the feature).
3. GeoffreyBooth commented on Sep 25, 2023

   

   GeoffreyBooth

   on Sep 25, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   I don't have any objections to that PR beyond the comments I left on it. Do you have plans for a registry beyond what I see in the PR? We can discuss tomorrow.

   😄React with 😄1Reacted by Jacob Smith
4. JakobJingleheimer commented on Sep 25, 2023

   

   JakobJingleheimer

   on Sep 25, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   Oh! Then great 🙂

   I think a dual approach would be ideal—local and remote. Antoine's point that node does not make any requests on its own is a strong argument against node specifically fetching that; if we can fetch it some other way (eg npm search), I think that would be best. If there's no automated way, perhaps next-best is to print a message pointing to a guide, wherein the user can download (or copy+paste into a file) some kind of config for node to consume.

   A key step (as far as I see it) is the loader getting automatically written into some config (eg .env) that node will henceforth consume.

   Otherwise, this does little more than a blog post, which already exist today.
5. GeoffreyBooth commented on Sep 25, 2023

   

   GeoffreyBooth

   on Sep 25, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   We can chat tomorrow if you and @aduh95 are available. I think we at least need a page in https://nodejs.org/en/docs/guides spelling out what people should do. I would start with that, get something really solid written there, because whatever steps we recommend in that would be what we would try to automate with a script.

   Then the error message can both link to that guide and provide a command to run like npx @nodejs/add-typescript that would run something from npm that would prompt the user into enabling TypeScript support per whatever method we recommend in the guide; maybe it’s a wizard that presents a variety of options, etc. Having it be an npx script means that we avoid the problem of Node making network calls; and we aren’t tied to Node version, so it can be updated over time separately from Node. And then we can make the script as elaborate as we want; it can integrate with --env-file, etc. If and when we support a Node config file via JSON instead of .env, we can update the script to use that instead. And so on.

   I think this is all we need. The only “registry” would be something within Node core that triggers appropriate error messages, like the TypeScript extensions prompting the TypeScript-specific message, as you have in that PR. I think that’s fine. What I was concerned about was some kind of registry that would be user configuration, akin to require.extensions, since our current ways of registering loaders don’t map cleanly to a file extension-based approach.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Jacob Smith
6. JakobJingleheimer commented on Sep 26, 2023

   

   JakobJingleheimer

   on Sep 26, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   Cool. Works for me 🙂

   I'm available. Sounds like maybe we don't need to meet after all now though?
7. GeoffreyBooth commented on Sep 26, 2023

   

   GeoffreyBooth

   on Sep 26, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   Either way is fine by me, just let me know.
8. JakobJingleheimer commented on Sep 26, 2023

   

   JakobJingleheimer

   on Sep 26, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   Let's skip 🙂

   👍React with 👍2Reacted by Antoine du Hamel and Geoffrey Booth
9. GeoffreyBooth

   closed this as completedon Sep 26, 2023