• feat: make require('./foo.json') work as expected even if the json is transformed to JS by a custom plugin #4984 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

✅ Deploy Preview for rolldown-rs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	3802329
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/rolldown-rs/deploys/68511dd05b3c62000859767f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4984--rolldown-rs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Just to confirm, is this a temporary solution until "Option 1" in #3640 (module.exports export) is implemented? (As I believe we will support that one in the future)

Just to confirm, is this a temporary solution until "Option 1" in #3640 (module.exports export) is implemented? (As I believe we will support that one in the future)

After the pr is landed the option one is no longer needed, we already use a different way to handle require('.json') even if the moduleType is js, although it is a little bit tricky, just like the rollup commonjs plugin. See the test as an example.

Benchmarks Rust

• target: main(a167a85)
• pr: 06-17-fix_3640(3802329)

group                                                        pr                                     target
-----                                                        --                                     ------
bundle/bundle@multi-duplicated-top-level-symbol              1.00     82.9±2.17ms        ? ?/sec    1.02     84.5±2.38ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@multi-duplicated-top-level-symbol-sourcemap    1.00     96.1±3.16ms        ? ?/sec    1.00     96.3±2.66ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@rome_ts                                        1.02    120.7±2.26ms        ? ?/sec    1.00    118.4±2.12ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@rome_ts-sourcemap                              1.00    135.2±2.60ms        ? ?/sec    1.01    137.1±3.50ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@threejs                                        1.03     44.2±2.98ms        ? ?/sec    1.00     42.8±0.57ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@threejs-sourcemap                              1.01     49.7±0.65ms        ? ?/sec    1.00     49.4±0.58ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@threejs10x                                     1.01    460.8±6.37ms        ? ?/sec    1.00    457.0±5.70ms        ? ?/sec
bundle/bundle@threejs10x-sourcemap                           1.01    535.5±4.79ms        ? ?/sec    1.00    530.2±8.92ms        ? ?/sec
scan/scan@rome_ts                                            1.00     92.1±1.96ms        ? ?/sec    1.03     94.6±2.14ms        ? ?/sec
scan/scan@threejs                                            1.00     32.5±0.48ms        ? ?/sec    1.02     33.2±2.10ms        ? ?/sec
scan/scan@threejs10x                                         1.00    333.4±4.72ms        ? ?/sec    1.01    338.2±5.61ms        ? ?/sec

I test with #3640 (comment), it works fine when enable viteMode

Just to confirm, is this a temporary solution until "Option 1" in #3640 (module.exports export) is implemented? (As I believe we will support that one in the future)

After the pr is landed the option one is no longer needed, we already use a different way to handle require('.json') even if the moduleType is js, although it is a little bit tricky, just like the rollup commonjs plugin. See the test as an example.

Yes, this PR would work for Vite's case. But I think we'll still need to implement Option 1 in the future as it's supported by Node.js. Or do we plan not to support that intentionally?

Just to confirm, is this a temporary solution until "Option 1" in #3640 (module.exports export) is implemented? (As I believe we will support that one in the future)

After the pr is landed the option one is no longer needed, we already use a different way to handle require('.json') even if the moduleType is js, although it is a little bit tricky, just like the rollup commonjs plugin. See the test as an example.

Yes, this PR would work for Vite's case. But I think we'll still need to implement Option 1 in the future as it's supported by Node.js. Or do we plan not to support that intentionally?

No, I just mean for this case it is not needed. We could support it.

You could open another issue to track it if it is necessary.