Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

How do framework and buildtool handle webpack?

Kohei Hasegawa
March 23, 2019
1.3k

How do framework and buildtool handle webpack?

Kohei Hasegawa

March 23, 2019
Tweet

Transcript

  1. About me • @banyan / Kohei Hasegawa • Work at

    Quipper since 2013. • Mainly working on frontend (React, TypeScript, PWA) and haven’t written Rails much these days :P
  2. Agenda 1. About Webpack 2. How do framework and buildtool

    handle webpack? 3. Diversity of Rails application 4. Can we improve webpacker? 5. Summary
  3. What does webpacker do? • webpack can be used immediately

    after rails new. • Provide javascript_pack_tag helper and others to link JavaScript assets • Quick start of React, Vue, Angular, Elm and Stimulus and others
  4. There are also criticisms towards webpacker • The config api

    is extra cost to learn if one knows webpack very well. • Update to webpack 4 is slow. ◦ It has finally been released recently though. • Better to discard webpacker when rails app is initialized. ◦ Is this only in Japan context?
  5. create-react-app • A build tool to create React application •

    Basically, not customizable • Provide eject feature • Some tools such as https://github.com/timarney/react-app-rewired enables us to overwrite config. It’s community based.
  6. vue cli 3 • A build tool to create Vue.js

    application • Customizable ◦ Using https://github.com/survivejs/webpack-merge • Does not provide eject feature ◦ More importantly, we want to encourage people to stay away from ejecting so that they get upgrade capabilities in the future. This is important from both a bug fix and security perspective. ▪ https://github.com/vuejs/vue-cli/issues/2796
  7. Phoenix 1.4 • An application framework for Elixir • Changed

    build tool from Brunch to webpack • Eject as default ◦ webpack config files would be copied after initialization
  8. So what’s the best way to handle webpack? • There

    is no best way neither framework nor build tool ◦ Everything is trade-off • It depends on how much user knows webpack and also the type of applications
  9. The role of Rails has been changed • Rails takes

    care everything from view to API from 10 years ago. • There is a case that rails is used only for API nowadays, the major frontend battlefield has been moved away from Rails. ◦ For frontend, SPA is getting more popular.
  10. The difference those how familiar with webpack • The one

    who knows webpack very well • The one who don’t know webpack at all
  11. The difference between the type of the application • Rails

    handles all, from view to api • SPA on rails • Separate SPA and use Rails as api server • Back-office purpose • etc...
  12. What I’m insisting is current situation is okay and I

    have done nothing so far. このままだとただの現状肯定おじさん
  13. However, can we improve webpacker a bit better? • What

    if webpacker has eject feature? ◦ As an escape route when webpack config can’t be easily configured if webpacker has hard code. ◦ For those who are familiar with webpack don’t need webpacker layer. ◦ We can start with webpacker until we reach the problems. • Alright, I think I can easily add eject feature... ◦ Tried: https://github.com/rails/webpacker/pull/1916
  14. What do we need to do for ejecting? • Generate

    webpack config ◦ Take over the settings of loader ▪ e.g. Using babel-loader • Prepare helper methods ◦ Extracting view helper is additional step. So use webpacker’s one for now.
  15. When the class is evaluated using JSON.stringify, the result is

    empty. $ node > class Foo {} undefined > JSON.stringify({ a: 1 }) '{"a":1}' > JSON.stringify({ a: new Foo() }) '{"a":{}}'
  16. "plugins": [{ "keys": [ "Apple_PubSub_Socket_Render", "CAML_LD_LIBRARY_PATH", … ] }, {

    "options": { "filename": "[name]-[contenthash:8].css", "chunkFilename": "[name]-[contenthash:8].chunk.css" } }, {}, ... ]
  17. The reason why webpacker:eject is difficult to implement. • Generate

    config dynamically is difficult with the current implementation of webpacker. ◦ Parse source code seems over engineered. ◦ Double maintenance for templates of eject codes and webpacker’s codes. ◦ This problems is how to compose object. • So I had to take approach to write template and read the current settings of rails application. Then generate config.
  18. Ideas to improve • There might be advantages if we

    use webpack-merge to compose webpack config. ◦ The code of webpacker itself can be readable. ◦ Learning-cost might be less since webpack-merge is used in the frontend community ◦ Eject can be easily implemented since it just needs to be copied. • If we change API, it will require migration too. • Another problem is I don’t have enough passion to do that.
  19. After created, I realised I won’t use. • There are

    many changes in architecture like serverless and microservice. • As I already work with SPA since 2013 and use rails just as api server. • I don’t see the future that I use Rails which handles everything inside as 10 years ago ◦ as I did to turn off turbolinks when turbolinks was just released.
  20. Summary • No best way on how frameworks and buildtools

    should handle webpack. • While the role of Rails is expanding, the current position of webpacker is not that bad. • Unless you really need to do, you don’t need to discard webpacker