Add explicit exports for node

[smaye81]

Related to issue #610 experienced in Protobuf-ES. This adds explicit exports for node into the package.json for all published packages in Connect-ES. In addition, it modifies the path for the top-level import statement to use ESM instead of the proxy.

For more context, check PR #611 in Protobuf-ES as well as the above issue.

Also note that the ideal setting for the node imports condition should be something along the lines of:

  "exports": {
    ".": {
      "node": {
        "import": "./dist/proxy/index.js",
      },
      "module": "./dist/esm/index.js",
      "import": "./dist/esm/index.js",
      "require": "./dist/cjs/index.js"
    }
  },

Since any require statements for Node should find the top-level require condition.

However, doing so causes the attw checks to fail with a Fallback Condition error. So, we have added an additional "require": "./dist/cjs/index.js" inside the node condition to satisfy this check. But, it's unclear whether this is necessary and whether this check is entirely accurate on attw's part.

The claim is that the require condition is being resolved due to a TypeScript bug. The attw docs state that Node's resolution algorithm "requires that resolution stop once a target filename has been tried, whether or not that file could be found". TypeScript, though, will continue to evaluate conditions if a file cannot be found. Hence, why this check fails - attw thinks the require condition is only being resolved because of a bug in TypeScript.

This does not seem to be Node's behavior in practice, though. Node docs clearly state:

Conditions continue to be matched in order as with flat conditions. If a nested condition does not have any mapping it will continue checking the remaining conditions of the parent condition. In this way nested conditions behave analogously to nested JavaScript if statements.

In addition, this has been verified with some local checks. So, the tl;dr here is that the attw Fallback Condition check seems like it may be incorrect, but needs deeper investigation. In the meantime, we are adding this additional node.require condition to satisfy the check until we can definitively say whether it's needed.

[timostamm]

LGTM!

(Please make sure the PR description is up to date)