use absolute path. #4588
Closed
use absolute path. #4588
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
### Title: Encourage Explicit Import Paths for Better Compatibility and Predictability **Description:** When using Alpine.js via a CDN (e.g., [jsDelivr](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net)), importing modules without explicit file extensions may lead to issues. For example, attempting to import the CSP build results in a 404 error: ```javascript import Alpine from 'https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@alpinejs/csp@3.14.9/builds/cdn.js'; ``` This error occurs because Alpine.js includes module imports without explicitly specifying file extensions. Some runtime environments and CDNs, including Deno, enforce stricter module resolution and do not guess the correct extension. ### Example Error: ``` GET https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@alpinejs/csp@3.14.9/src/index net::ERR_ABORTED 404 (Not Found) ``` ### Suggested Solution: - Explicitly specify `.js` in all import paths, e.g.: ```javascript import Alpine from './index.js'; ``` - This approach is aligned with best practices and ensures compatibility across multiple environments. Ryan dhal did regreted the hole module resolver thinking index was cute, but oh so wrong he was. it adds complexity to a simple solution that don't even work in the browser/esm. It gets harder to make the switch by refactoring code to esm. paths need to be guessed/looked up: did you meant to import `foo.js` or `foo/index.js`? Remote path resolver don't have this luxury where it dose not have direct access to the harddrive and can't lookup the file that is needed.
Collaborator
PR Review: #4588 — use absolute path.Type: Refactor (cosmetic) What's happening (plain English)This PR adds // Before
import Alpine from './../src/index'
// After
import Alpine from './../src/index.js'The idea is that explicit file extensions in import specifiers are "more correct." The linked issue #4587 presumably argues for this. Other approaches considered
Changes MadeNo changes made. Test ResultsNo tests to run — this is a cosmetic change to a build entry point. CI build check passed. Code Review
SecurityNo security concerns identified. VerdictClose. This is a zero-impact cosmetic change that doesn't fully achieve its own stated goal (consistency). Alpine's build system uses esbuild, which handles extensionless imports without issue — the build output is identical either way. The PR touches 1 of 4 files with this pattern, so merging it would actually make the codebase less consistent (1 file with Reviewed by Claude |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
use explicit path in imports (See #4587)