FR: configureOutputLibrary()

[masi]

Encore creates a default output configuration. I cannot change an entries of with the API. The ones I'm interested in are the library settings.

https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputlibrary
https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputlibraryexport
https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputlibrarytarget
https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputauxiliarycomment
https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputumdnameddefine
https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output#outputglobalobject

But of course there are a lot of other things one can configure:

https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output

I didn't ask for the others as one might feel that the user can break the config if allowed to change the others as well.

[Lyrkan]

Hi @masi,

You should already be able to edit those properties manually:

const config = Encore.getWebpackConfig();

config.output = {
  ...config.output,
  library: 'MyLib',
  libraryTarget: 'umd',
  // (...)
};

module.exports = config;

... but that being said there was some discussion related to this topic a while ago on Slack (no history of it, sadly...) and if I recall correctly it required other changes in Encore to work correctly, for instance:

• not calling setPublicPath() or using an empty path is currently forbidden, but this doesn't make sense if you want to build a lib
• some other things that Encore always does are not needed in a library context (eg.: entrypoints.json generation)

For those reasons I was more in favor of adding a method that would allow to explicitely tell Encore that you want to build a lib and disable unnecessary checks/features. I'd love to hear other opinions though.

[masi]

I'm aware of your workaround, thank you. It's only an inconvenience as you can configure so many aspects of Webpack with functions.

But actually I don't want to build a library but expose a module in global browser scope.

config.output.library = 'AppObject'; // => accessible as window.AppObject
config.output.libraryExport = 'MyApiModule'; // the module exported as AppObject

[Kocal]

Just my 2 cents, I don't think Webpack Encore is the best tool to build a library. For apps yes, but not for libraries.

[sepehr]

"For those reasons I was more in favor of adding a method that would allow to explicitely tell Encore that you want to build a lib and disable unnecessary checks/features. I'd love to hear other opinions though."

That'd be great. I was just adapting my encore confs from an app to a package with a lot of similarities that I encountered this API limitation.

"Just my 2 cents, I don't think Webpack Encore is the best tool to build a library. For apps yes, but not for libraries."

Can you please elaborate more?

I find the API intuitive enough to build both apps and packages. I mean as a build tool it is definitely capable of targeting both. I can't see why not.

[stof]

Well, webpack is able to target both of course. Encore is about adding a configuration layer on top of it, and this layer managing part of the config for you is clearly geared towards apps.
For libraries, I suggest using webpack directly (anyway, in webpack 4+, they made lots of efforts to simplify the config, especially for libraries where you will have less advanced things like code splitting anyway).

[sepehr]

Thanks for the reply, Christophe. I see your point, but what I can't see is the "why not" part of the equation. I mean, by relaxing some constraints offering few more APIs maybe, Encore could be easily and natively used for libraries as well. With few output hacks, I'm using my existing Encore configs for multiple libraries.

Anyway, my understanding of possible underlying restrictions and/or technical efforts is literally zero. Just saying from a user perspective.