Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: support user manualChunks config #5831

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

zhangyuang
Copy link
Contributor

@zhangyuang zhangyuang commented Nov 25, 2021

Description

Now i need a config option that config.build.manualChunks will be added after default createMoveToVendorChunkFn function called when bundle client files, if not add the option but use config.build.rollupOptions.manualChunks will cover default manualChunks function

Additional context

I need generate chunk name base on default manualChunks createMoveToVendorChunkFn function.
Or there is another way can implement my requirements?


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.

@Niputi
Copy link
Contributor

Niputi commented Nov 25, 2021

no need to ping. we are already getting notifications

@zhangyuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

zhangyuang commented Nov 25, 2021 via email

@Shinigami92 Shinigami92 added p2-nice-to-have Not breaking anything but nice to have (priority) needs test YAO Yet another option... labels Nov 25, 2021
@Shinigami92 Shinigami92 self-requested a review November 25, 2021 10:08
@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

Or there is another way can implement my requirements?

Yeah... I'm not sure, but it feels like would be nice if there is a better way

@zhangyuang zhangyuang closed this Nov 25, 2021
@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

@zhangyuang Did you found an alternative way?

@zhangyuang zhangyuang reopened this Nov 25, 2021
@zhangyuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Shinigami92 I have try it but failed, so reopen it and add test in ssr-react

@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

Shinigami92 commented Nov 25, 2021

Seems like a flaky test again ... I will rerun them shortly ... nevermind, you did a commit 😅

Beside that, new impl looks much better than before 🙂

@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

Approved it, but due to it's a YAO I will bring this to next team meeting on 2021-12-03 to discuss.

@zhangyuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

zhangyuang commented Nov 25, 2021 via email

@ygj6
Copy link
Member

ygj6 commented Nov 25, 2021

Thinking that similar issues and PRs have been created here before #5487 #5585. Is this PR necessary?

@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

Thinking that similar issues and PRs have been created here before #5487 #5585. Is this PR necessary?

Added this to discussion notes too. Sadly this is already very low (cause p2) and we have much from last meetings. So don't be up-sad if we don't get to this point in next meeting. We try our best 🙂

@zhangyuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

zhangyuang commented Nov 25, 2021 via email

@ygj6
Copy link
Member

ygj6 commented Nov 25, 2021

Respect and understand, thank you for your efforts! 👍

@Shinigami92
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #5585

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
p2-nice-to-have Not breaking anything but nice to have (priority) YAO Yet another option...
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants