feat(worker): allow passing options to worker constructors

[branchseer]

Description

This PR adds support for the options parameter of worker constructors, notably allowing { type: "classic" } (fixes #2550).

Additional context

There is #2578, but it's closed at #2578 (comment). This PR workarounds that problem by prepending importScript(...) instead of import ... to classic worker scripts.

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.

[branchseer]

ping @andreasg123

I don't quite understand why we didn't pass {type: "module"} to new Worker(objURL) (#4674). An oversight maybe?

[techird]

I am using monaco editor via vitejs. The ts_worker is loaded as module worker, importScript fails when i use customWorkerPath.

This PR helps. Any chance to merge this?

[zhouhuiquan]

Dingtalk's chromium is 72, Worker module type surport 80, It Is Necessary!

[artemjackson]

lgtm

[sapphi-red]

Closing as the support has landed with different syntax. #2550 (comment)
https://vitejs.dev/guide/features.html#import-with-constructors

[0x30]

#2550(comment)

@sapphi-red

It can be used in the development environment, but when 'NPM run build', my new URL is a typescript file?

new URL("./worker.ts", import.meta.url)
// after npm run build
const ng=new URL("./worker.ts",self.location);Yr=new Worker(ng,{type:"classic"});

Does this mean that I have to compile my web worker file in advance in this way? Or is there something wrong with the way I use it?

I still think this method can better solve the problem

import MyClassicWorker from './ classic-worker? worker'

const worker = new MyClassicWorker({ type: 'classic' })

[sapphi-red]

@0x30 I feel your usage is not correct. Please create an Q&A discussion with reproduction.

[0x30]

Yes, you are right. You can see discussions#8525.

1. But I don't think the document tells us that new workers (New URLs) are not allowed to be separated.Based on previous experience, I think it is OK to transfer URL as a variable to the worker. Obviously, there may be some problems. Maybe the document can focus on this.
2. Yes, you can also see from the discussion that I did these operations when solving the problem of [dev mode classic worker],Although the problem of worker classic under dev has been modified pull/7099, you can see myexample. This problem still exists in vite 2.9.11. Or what? Did I use the wrong way again?

[sapphi-red]

@0x30

1. Please create an issue or a PR about improving document.
2. I think it is When using import inside classic worker, syntax error happens during dev but build success #8470. You cannot use import in classic worker.