chore: add type="module" to package.json #225
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request updates the package configuration for the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Dev as Developer
participant PM as Package Manager (pnpm)
participant Vite as Vite Build
participant Node as Node Runner
Dev->>PM: Execute build script
PM->>PM: Run build:theme
PM->>Vite: Execute vite build
Vite-->>PM: Return build output
PM->>Node: Run pre-release script (pre-release.cjs)
Node-->>PM: Complete post-release tasks
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/fluent-editor/package.json(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: autofix.ci
packages/fluent-editor/package.json
[error] 1-1: The autofix.ci action is not allowed to modify the .github directory.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: test
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/fluent-editor/package.json (1)
32-32: LGTM! Good practice using explicit .cjs extension.The change from
pre-release.jstopre-release.cjsexplicitly marks the script as CommonJS, ensuring it works correctly regardless of the package type setting. This is a good practice for maintaining clarity about the module system in use.
| @@ -22,13 +22,14 @@ | |||
| "opentiny", | |||
| "fluent-editor" | |||
| ], | |||
| "type": "module", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Verify the impact of enabling ES modules.
Adding "type": "module" changes how Node.js interprets .js files as ES modules by default. This could affect:
- Existing
.jsfiles that use CommonJS syntax - Import/export statements throughout the codebase
- Scripts that aren't ready for ESM
Let's verify the codebase compatibility:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential CommonJS syntax in .js files that might break
echo "Checking for require() calls in .js files..."
rg "require\(" --type js
echo "Checking for module.exports in .js files..."
rg "module\.exports" --type js
echo "Checking for __dirname/__filename usage in .js files..."
rg "__dirname|__filename" --type jsLength of output: 580
ESM Package: Potential Compatibility Issues with CommonJS Scripts
The addition of "type": "module" in package.json means that .js files are now treated as ES modules by default, which could break files still written using CommonJS syntax. We found that:
verifyCommit.jsusesrequire()to import modules.jest.config.jsusesmodule.exports.
These patterns will lead to runtime issues unless those files are either renamed to use a .cjs extension (as done for the pre-release script) or are refactored to use ES module syntax.
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