Support object-valued "browser" field in package.json. #9311
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 11 commits
November 6, 2017 11:21
The `installPath` property was always essentially an absolute module identifier that was simply missing the leading '/' character, so this commit acknowledges that role by renaming the property to `absModuleId` and adding the leading slash.
Any package.json file that includes an object-valued "browser" field will now be included in the .packageJsonMap.
Regression test for #6890.
This was referenced Apr 26, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR implements support for the "relative style" of
browserreplacements, as discussed in my comment here: #6890 (comment)Replacements that use the "package style" are simply ignored, due to the prohibitive cost of supporting that style at runtime. There seemed to be a consensus in the #6890 discussion that partially supporting object-valued
browserfields was better than not supporting them at all.