allowJs: why is import "x.js" being ignored?

[OliverJAsh]

Source:

// ./src/main.ts
import './console-log';
import './console-log.js';

console.log('console-log main')

// ./src/console-log.js
console.log('console-log JS')

// ./src/console-log.ts
console.log('console-log TS')

Config:

{
    "compilerOptions": {
        "module": "amd",
        "outFile": "./target/main.js",
        "allowJs": true
    },
    "files": ["./src/main.ts"]
}

Output:

// ./target/main.ts
console.log('console-log TS');
define("main", ["require", "exports", './console-log', './console-log.js'], function (require, exports) {
    "use strict";
    console.log('console-log main');
});

Notice that the output is missing the contents of the ./console-log.js import.

[kitsonk]

I suspect this is a dupe of #4595 and fixed via #8895

[OliverJAsh]

Is there any workaround? I guess I could rename all of my files to .ts

[kitsonk]

I guess the question is why do you have to be explicit about the file extension on your modules?

I see you are outputting to AMD... it is considered not a good idea to specify the file extension in AMD, because of portability issues just like this.

[OliverJAsh]

I have an app where some modules are TS, some are JS. I want to include all of them, but this bug means that currently, all my JS files are ignored.

I'm being explicit in my example because I have two files, one in TS and one in JS, and I want to import both. The fact they have the same name is irrelevant.

[kitsonk]

I'm being explicit in my example because I have two files, one in TS and one in JS, and I want to import both. The fact they have the same name is irrelevant.

Name two different modules .js and .ts is a recipe for disaster... When you files are transpiled and emitted, what do you think the .ts file is going to be named?

[OliverJAsh]

The issue persists even if the files have different names.

[kitsonk]

But then you don't (and shouldn't) append .js to your file name for an AMD module loader.

[OliverJAsh]

I see, that seems to fix it! Thank you.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 at 11:21 Kitson Kelly notifications@github.com wrote:

But then you don't (and shouldn't) append .js to your file name for an
AMD module loader.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9070 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AA4QCa5zw196YN_9Tm7x4Xx-zJIHjquSks5qKTqOgaJpZM4Iyvi6
.

[OliverJAsh]

Now I have separate names, the modules are being included in the bundle. However, the AMD output is broken:

console.log('console-log JS');
console.log('console-log TS');
define("main", ["require", "exports", './console-log-1', './console-log-2'], function (require, exports) {
    "use strict";
    console.log('console-log main');
});

Requiring/importing main will fail because there are no AMD modules called console-log-1 or console-log-2. TypeScript did not wrap them as AMD modules. Why is this?

[DanielRosenwasser]

@OliverJAsh did console-log-1 or console-log-2 have any import or export statements? Our detection on whether or not a file is a module is based on that, and for global files, we just do simple concatentation. If you don't have any exports, you can use export {}.

[OliverJAsh]

They have no import/export statements. Should TypeScript be adding them as dependencies to the outputted module if they are not detected to be a module?

In my case I am gradually converting an app into modules, so it would be difficult to add export everywhere.

[mhegazy]

there are two issues, first the .js extension issue. this is tracked by #4595 and fixed in #8895 as @kitsonk noted.

the second is that the files are not considered modules, as @DanielRosenwasser noted. for these, consider adding an empty export statement in the JS files, e.g.:

// ./src/console-log.js
console.log('console-log JS')

export {}; // makes it a module

with that change, the output would look like:

define("console-log", ["require", "exports"], function (require, exports) {
    "use strict";
    // ./src/console-log.ts
    console.log('console-log TS');
});
define("console-log", ["require", "exports"], function (require, exports) {
    "use strict";
    // ./src/console-log.js
    console.log('console-log JS');
});
define("main", ["require", "exports", "console-log", "console-log"], function (require, exports) {
    "use strict";
    console.log('console-log main');
});

The change that needs to be done on the TS compiler side, is to treat a file as module, if it was imported. this is more inline with the spec. we should file a different issue to track that.

[OliverJAsh]

I think TypeScript should not allow the user to end up in the situation I did, with a broken AMD module. Could TypeScript throw an error/warn if you try to load a JS file that is not a module?

[kitsonk]

@OliverJAsh, covered by #9082

[mjohnsonengr]

I have a similar issue I posted in a StackOverflow question and then I stumbled across this -- it seems related, except I think my question points out that @mhegazy's suggestion actually does not produce the expected output posted.

[mhegazy]

@mjohnsonengr is this a different issue. i have replied to your SO question.

[mhegazy]

Error for non-module code used as module is tracked by #9082

[aluanhaddad]

@OliverJAsh The problems with explicit extension syntax are, as @kitsonk mentioned, name collision and loader issues, and also workflow toolchain issues.
Let's suppose I am developing a module using SystemJS and using plugin-typescript as my transpiler. My colleague is developing a different module and prefers to use gulp-typescript. I can consume his code and he can consume mine without any issues. However, if either of use used explicit extensions, they would be emitted in the transpiled code, meaning if my colleague were to import one of my files, it would be looking for the artifact. It also would mean that with allowJS the compiler would pick a .js file before a corresponding .ts file, and thereby lose available type information.