oxc-resolver-has-issue-in-esbuild-test-case-packagejson-2002b

[zhusjfaker]

master

i'm dev rolldown for esbuild package_json test cases

when i migrate TestPackageJsonBrowserIssue2002B

https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/blob/main/internal/bundler_tests/bundler_packagejson_test.go#L830

i found some resovle error in oxc-resolver

please help me check

In order to quickly reproduce the bug I've created a git repo of code that can be reproduced.

https://github.com/zhusjfaker/oxc-resolver-has-issue-in-esbuild-test-case-packagejson-2002b/blob/master/tests/mod.rs#L44

https://github.com/zhusjfaker/oxc-resolver-has-issue-in-esbuild-test-case-packagejson-2002b

[Boshen]

Interesting, we'll need to confirm with enhanced-resolve for this behaviour, since there is no formal spec for the browser field, and the official spec doesn't say anything about this https://github.com/defunctzombie/package-browser-field-spec. But esbuild's behaviour is also reasonable.

[zhusjfaker]

Interesting, we'll need to confirm with enhanced-resolve for this behaviour, since there is no formal spec for the browser field, and the official spec doesn't say anything about this https://github.com/defunctzombie/package-browser-field-spec. But esbuild's behaviour is also reasonable.

thank you master

[zhusjfaker]

If there are any updates to get a follow-up not under consideration for support, please update the latest status and I'll keep an eye out for replies Thank you master

[Boshen]

Please don't @ if it's not urgent, I will go through github notifications accordingly.

[hyf0]

Some contexts:

• Resolve wrong path when import sub-path module with browser field evanw/esbuild#2002
• evanw/esbuild@25c6862 evanw writes great changelog.

[Boshen]

I'm going to close this as not planned, here are my reasonings:

• The original feature request didn't come from an actual user land usage
• the use case is super weird, there are no relevant teaching source that advocate this usage
• browser field is outdated, has no spec, and is superseded by package exports
• I've already spent like maybe 100 hours on the browser fields, it's a mine field and I don't want to spend more time on it. I don't want to spend on something that is outdated, has no spec. Every bug or feature involves at least two hours of reading the specification, doing tests, and find edge cases.

Please don't tell me to support it just because it's supported by another bundler, this is not a reason to support a feature.

I'll reconsider this if this use case comes up in user land.

Sorry for being harsh, I'm just really frustrated by browser fields.