You may not need a bundler for your NPM library
2022-05-27
I have seen a couple threads on twitter where people complain about the difficulty with publishing NPM libraries or ask what starter kit they should use (or, people recommended starter packs anyways)
Example threads
- https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/1513903035197526017
- https://twitter.com/oleg008/status/1510006191296061441
- https://twitter.com/iansu/status/1524860613943382017
- https://twitter.com/mpocock1/status/1525075901905522691
One thing that is notable to me in these threads is that people often recommend that you use a bundler (a program that combines multiple src files into a single or fewer output files) when developing a library
Examples of starter packs suggested in these threads that use bundlers
microbundle
- https://github.com/developit/microbundle - uses rollupesno
- https://www.npmjs.com/package/esno - uses esbuildunbuild
- https://github.com/unjs/unbuild - uses rolluppreconstruct
- https://github.com/preconstruct/preconstruct - uses rolluptsup
- https://github.com/egoist/tsup - uses esbuildtsdx
- https://github.com/jaredpalmer/tsdx - uses rollupvite library mode
- https://vitejs.dev/guide/build.html#library-mode - uses rolluppackemon
- https://github.com/milesj/packemon - uses rollupts-library-template
- https://github.com/shortercode/ts-library-template - uses rollupparcel
- https://twitter.com/devongovett/status/1524944991402999810 - uses parceldts
- https://weiran-zsd.github.io/dts-cli/ - uses rolluppkgroll
- https://github.com/privatenumber/pkgroll - uses rollupmkdist
- https://github.com/unjs/mkdist - referenced byunbuild
, uses esbuild
Not using bundlers
gts
- https://github.com/google/gtsts-react-toolbox
- https://github.com/zzarcon/ts-react-toolbox/
In summary 2/15 do not use a bundler, 13/15 do use a bundler. Sidenote: webpack notably absent. Sidenote 2: I don't necessarily give praise to the two not using bundlers, just saying they exist.
#Why would you NOT want a bundler for your library?
My main argument is that the consumer of your library is the one that should use a bundler if it is relevant to them. If the library uses a bundler:
- in the best case, it has no impact on the consumer
- in the worst case, it affects the complexity of your library and makes possible limitations for your consumers also.
An example where it can actually create limitations, you might consider code
splitting with async import()
. If you create a single file bundle, then the
consumer of your library may not be able to do code splitting properly via async
import()
#Why would you MAYBE want a bundler for your library
If you really care about producing a UMD
bundle that can be used in a script
tag, maybe you want a bundler, but the future does not seem to be in UMD
. One
other possible bundle type is maybe you like the idea of a single file ESM
module. It is similar where you could maybe reference this from a script tag
with type module, but this seems like a niche usage. For example, you would
still have to consider:
- If you are not bundling dependencies, then what is the benefit of using a bundler?
- If you are bundling dependencies, you are not allowing people to get updates to your sub-dependencies with semver!
Add-on: Another concern brought up by users in discussion thread: There is a cost to having many small files, e.g. in app startup cost on serverless or any nodejs application to loading many small files off disk. To me, this is an app level concern, similar to bundling for the browser though.
#My suggestion: no bundler, no starter pack, just tsc
I'd recommend just compiling your code with tsc
, no bundler involved. This
way, you can develop with typescript, it will output js
files, and you can
directly deploy a dist
folder of js
files to NPM.
#Example package.json
{
"name": "yourlib",
"version": "1.0.0",
"main": "dist/index.js",
"scripts": {
"clean": "rimraf dist",
"prebuild": "npm run clean",
"build": "tsc",
"preversion": "npm run build",
"postversion": "git push --follow-tags"
},
"files": ["dist", "src"],
"devDependencies": {
"rimraf": "^3.0.2",
"typescript": "^4.6.2"
}
}
#Features of the above package.json
- We can use a single command,
yarn publish
to publish to npm - The single
yarn publish
automatically runsclean
andbuild
viapreversion
, thenpostversion
, which pushes the tag to the remote repo - The
"files": ["dist", "src"]
refers to publishing thedist
andsrc
directories, and src is used for thesourceMap
#Example tsconfig.json
{
"include": ["src"],
"compilerOptions": {
"target": "es2018",
"outDir": "dist",
"lib": ["dom", "esnext"],
"declaration": true,
"moduleResolution": "node",
"sourceMap": true,
"strict": true,
"esModuleInterop": true
}
}
#Features of the above tsconfig.json
- Uses
"moduleResolution": "node"
- this is not pure-ESM because pure-ESM expects you to import filenames with their file extension, while node module resolution can import extensionless paths, but node module resolution generally works well with consumers that use bundlers themselves - Uses
"target": "es2018"
- This is does a small amount of transpilation of super modern features, but would generally not require your users to babel-ify theirnode_modules
if they consume your library
#What about testing?
Adding testing is not immediately solved by the above, but bundling doesn't really help testing anyways. It's just a starter pack feature we can add on. Some options you have include
- Use
ts-jest
- Use
jest
on it's own, plus ababel
config with@babel/preset-typescript
- Use
jest
on it's own, run over the compiled output without ababel
config - Use
vitest
- Possibly something else? Node now has a built-in test runner. It will be a slow road to adoption but might become more popular over time https://fusebit.io/blog/node-testing-comes-to-core/
#Conclusion
It is tempting to have nice zero-config solutions and starter kits, but to me, it is not really beneficial to use the bundler aspect of many of these for publishing to NPM. Am I wrong? Let me know if I am.
Also, these starter kits may not be maintained for perpetuity. Our team used
tsdx
for some time, but it was not maintained well, and used old typescript
version 3.x, and it ended up being hard to remove from our codebase. Learning
the basic tools like tsc
will help
#Footnote 1: Shipping "pure-ESM"
Do you want to make a pure-ESM package? Then you do not want to use
"moduleResolution": "node"
in tsconfig.json
, and you will want to set
"type": "module"
in package.json
. You may also need to explicitly import
with .js
extensions in your source code, even if you write .ts
. This is
awkward, and something the community is still grappling with.
If you have ever stumbled on this topic, you will probably want to see this link https://gist.github.com/sindresorhus/a39789f98801d908bbc7ff3ecc99d99c
#Footnote 2: Shipping ESM and CommonJS side by side without going "pure-ESM"
It can be tricky to go pure-ESM, but you can go most of the way there by using both the "main" and "module" fields in package.json
- Compile with tsc with
tsc --module commonjs --outDir dist
- Compile with tsc again with
tsc --module esnext --outDir esm
- Then set "main":"dist/index.js" for node and
"module":"esm/index.js"
for bundlers
The "module" field is a field only bundlers recognizes https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42708484/what-is-the-module-package-json-field-for
Note: This is different from the "type":"module" which marks your module as pure-ESM!
I have found this technique can go a long ways towards keeping your package compatible with nodeJS and bundlers and it does not require "export maps" or anything which I have found to be difficult to configure
#Footnote 3: Learning your tools
Several people on the my recent post post suggested that I did not understand my tools, and that I should just learn the tools correctly and I wouldn't have the problem I had.
Indeed, what I am now telling people to do in this post is similar: I am saying
"just use tsc
by itself! Understand you tools! You may have to do more
research and create more boilerplate, but it's better".
Ultimately though, it's up to you to choose your tools and starter packs and whatnot.
#Footnote 4: What does it look like when you compile with tsc?
When I refer to compiling with tsc above, I compile a src
directory into a
dist
directory
So if I have:
src/index.ts
src/util.ts
src/components/Button.ts
Running tsc
will output:
dist/index.js
dist/index.d.ts
dist/index.js.map
dist/util.js
dist/util.d.ts
dist/util.js.map
dist/components/Button.js
dist/components/Button.d.ts
dist/components/Button.js.map
Then, the dist
and src
directories are published to npm which enables the
sourceMaps
to work.
Note: We do not need to explicitly say where the typescript types are with
"types" in package.json
, many starter packs do this but it is unneeded for
this package as the d.ts files are automatically found.
See https://cmdcolin.github.io/posts/2021-12-31-npm-package for my article on creating a typescript package for npm
#Footnote 5: Other things people recommend
Other things people recommend in the starter pack threads
deno
- not clear to me how this helps when deploying to npm, but I still gotta try denots-node
- not clear to me how this helps when deploying to npmnx
- heavy monorepo-based solutionelm
- that's just a different thingTypescript-Node-Starter
- https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript-Node-Starter - not a library, full stack frameworkjoystick
- https://github.com/CheatCode/joystick - not a library, full stack framework
#Footnote 6:
Similar things happen if you take on dependencies of starter kits like
create-react-app
. You become very committed to their particular way of doing
things, and can only modify their config with things like rescripts
, craco
or rewired
. If you crafted your setup with just webpack
, you may not be so
tied down. But, I still use things like create-react-app
because they do seem
to help me significantly. Now though, the tide seems to be turning other
directions like next.js which can do static site generation at a basic level and
extend to multiple pages more easily.
#Footnote 7:
You may not even need tsc
to compile your dist folder. You can literally
publish your source .js
files as-is to NPM. This suggestion comes from
@trevmanz 1
2. I don't personally
use this technique yet but there are many users with this workflow
An interesting thing is you can write in .js
but still get typescript
to get
type checking using jsdoc
, just use allowJs
/checkJs
flags in
tsconfig.json
#Footnote 8:
What about React? Bundlers not needed, and not even babel is needed: you can
code your library as in jsx
or tsx
files and use tsc
to compile it to
React.createElement statements or other jsx transforms.