feat(env): support dotenv-expand to contains process env

[Dunqing]

Description

close: #6626

Additional context

---

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the Pull Request Guidelines and follow the Commit Convention.
• Check that there isn't already a PR that solves the problem the same way to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Provide a description in this PR that addresses what the PR is solving, or reference the issue that it solves (e.g. fixes #123).
• Ideally, include relevant tests that fail without this PR but pass with it.

[bluwy]

Marking this as a breaking change and for 4.0 since there were regression reports when we last tried to update, but thanks for starting work on this! We could be merging this once 4.0 is near. (when the test is fixed too 😬 )

[Dunqing]

Hope version 4 will come soon😁

[bluwy]

Vite 4 will follow shortly after Rollup 3 is released, which is soon I think 👍

[benmccann]

@Dunqing main is now targeting Vite 4. Would you be able to update this PR to address the merge conflict?

[sapphi-red]

I think bumping dotenv-expand can be done independently without this change because we're not using the change in 9.0.0.

Also dotenv-expand requires dotenv v16. (It doesn't include peerDep though.) So I think we should upgrade it together if we are upgrading dotenv-expand.
https://github.com/motdotla/dotenv-expand/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#800-2022-02-03

[sapphi-red]

The code itself looks good to me.

[Dunqing]

I think bumping dotenv-expand can be done independently without this change because we're not using the change in 9.0.0.

Yes

Also dotenv-expand requires dotenv v16. (It doesn't include peerDep though.) So I think we should upgrade it together if we are upgrading dotenv-expand. https://github.com/motdotla/dotenv-expand/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#800-2022-02-03

I can make a new PR to support #10149, or do it here and close #10149, what do you think?

[sapphi-red]

I can make a new PR to support #10149, or do it here and close #10149, what do you think?

IMHO it would be better to remove bumping dotenv-expand from this PR and splitted into a PR that includes upgrading dotenv.

[sapphi-red]

Would you revert the pnpm.lock change just in case?

[sapphi-red]

Thanks for updating!

---

I just noticed that it throws an error with dotenv-expand@>=6.0.0 if a user had an env var that includes $.
The error is TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'split') that is same with #6858.

With powershell, you can reproduce by running $env:VITE_FOO="$`f"; pnpm dev. With bash, I guess $VITE_FOO="\$f" pnpm dev will do the same thing.

This is not a direct blocker of this PR, but this PR will block #10826 if merged.

Maybe we should wait for dotenv-expand to fix that. Or we could make a PR to dotenv-expand and apply that patch with pnpm patch for a while (It works because we are bundling dotenv-expand).

[Dunqing]

This is not a direct blocker of this PR, but this PR will block #10826 if merged.

Maybe we should wait for dotenv-expand to fix that. Or we could make a PR to dotenv-expand and apply that patch with pnpm patch for a while (It works because we are bundling dotenv-expand).

Ok, I see, I think we can fix the problem with dotenv-expand in #10826, instead of blocking this PR.