fix(asset): respect assetFileNames if rollupOptions.output is an array #8561
Conversation
patak-dev
added
the
p3-minor-bug
| const defaultAssetFileNames = path.posix.join( | ||
| config.build.assetsDir, | ||
| '[name].[hash][extname]' | ||
| ) | ||
| // Steps to determine which assetFileNames will be actually used. | ||
| // First, if output is an object or string, use assetFileNames in it. | ||
| // And a default assetFileNames as fallback. | ||
| let assetFileNames: Exclude<OutputOptions['assetFileNames'], undefined> = | ||
| (output && !Array.isArray(output) ? output.assetFileNames : undefined) ?? | ||
| // defaults to '<assetsDir>/[name].[hash][extname]' | ||
| // slightly different from rollup's one ('assets/[name]-[hash][extname]') | ||
| path.posix.join(config.build.assetsDir, '[name].[hash][extname]') | ||
| defaultAssetFileNames | ||
| if (output && Array.isArray(output)) { | ||
| // Second, if output is an array, adopt assetFileNames in the first object. | ||
| assetFileNames = output[0].assetFileNames ?? assetFileNames | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using the first output configured by the user is a better choice here. Should we consider outputting multiple assets according to array in lib mode? (Maybe it has nothing to related to this PR)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we could keep working to improve this later. At least this PR fixes the plugin legacy issue that is very common. So i think we should merge and then work on another PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, lib mode is just asset output once. and chunk and entry will output multi bundle
|
Hello @poyoho This MR caused a problem in our Vite Config and I would like to understand a couple of things before creating an issue. My Vite Config looks like this export default defineConfig(() => {
return {
...
build: {
outDir: "dist/fragments",
assetsDir,
rollupOptions: {
input: {
...
},
output: [
{
entryFileNames: `${assetsDir}/fallback/[name].js`,
chunkFileNames: `${assetsDir}/fallback/[name].js`,
assetFileNames: `${assetsDir}/fallback/[name].[ext]`,
},
{
entryFileNames: `${assetsDir}/[name].[hash].js`,
chunkFileNames: `${assetsDir}/[name].[hash].js`,
assetFileNames: `${assetsDir}/[name].[hash].[ext]`,
},
],
},
},
};
});We had this config since we need a copy of our builds without hashed names. This has worked for us with vIte@v2. Now the question, Why should output assetFileNames be ignored if it is an array, it's not really "respecting" rollup options. I've checked your MR #8597 and it seems that the same warning is still there. Am I missing something here? |
Fix #4628
Description
If build.rollupOptions.output is configured as array, the assetFileNames option will be ignored, instead using a default assetFileNames. This PR adopt the first assetFileNames option in the array, and give a warn if multiple assetFileNames return different values.
Most users encounter this bug while using @vitejs/plugin-legacy, which wraps the output option, change it from object to array.
Minimal reproduction
Steps:
npm run buildtypescript.svg. It should be emmited todist/assets/subdir, but actually indist/assets.Additional context
I create a vite config file
vite.config-multiple-output.jsin playground/legacy, and a corresponding npm scriptpnpm build:multiple-output. After running this script, a vite.svg should be emitted todist/assets/subdir/vite.[some hash].svg, and a warn log colored with yellow should be observed.What is the purpose of this pull request?
Bug fix
New Feature
Documentation update
Other
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.