Invalid package.json "type" field on npm install

[imathews]

Describe the bug

When installing @h5web/app and @h5web/wasm (@6.3.0), the package.json file for the installed packages in node_modules contains an invalid "type": "" field. The type in package.json should be one of commonjs, module. This is specifically happening for @h5web/lib, @h5web/app, @h5web/h5wasm.

I can see that the package.json in this repo doesn't have any "type" field, so I imagine it must be getting added during a build step.

The incorrect field creates distracting warnings on certain build tools, such as esbuild (see below). I imagine this might effect tree shaking and other module resolution behavior for these tools as well (though FWIW, h5web is working smoothly despite these warnings).

▲ [WARNING] "" is not a valid value for the "type" field [package.json]

    node_modules/@h5web/app/package.json:11:10:
      11 │   "type": "",
         ╵           ~~

  The "type" field must be set to either "commonjs" or "module".

To Reproduce

npm install @h5web/app

Expected behaviour

The "type" field in package.json I believe should be set to "module" for this library

Context

• OS: macos
• NPM version: 8.5.5
• Version: 6.3.0
• H5Web context: @h5web/lib, @h5web/app, @h5web/h5wasm

[axelboc]

Hi @imathews, thanks for the report.

Each package has its own package.json with "type": "module": for development. We override this to "type": "" on publish via pnpm's "publishConfig" object.

At first, we used to publish with "type": "module", but then CRA v5 / webpack v5 came around and we had some issues. I can't quite recall what they were -- maybe something with missing js extensions in import paths of dependencies... Yeah looks like it: #1000. But then CRA did not like "commonjs" either for some reason and we removed it: 50c9ef8.

I'll investigate again if the original issue can be resolved another way.

[imathews]

Thanks for the update @axelboc - all makes sense. I'm not particularly familiar with pnpm, though I wonder if there's a way to just remove the type field entirely from the distributed package.json... perhaps that would be enough to make all these tools happy? But agree if there's a way to sort #1000 in another way, that probably seems like the best path forward.

[axelboc]

I've gone with removing the type field entirely as you suggested, in the CI, just before publishing. b6eb771

Can you please try version 6.4.2-beta.1 and let us know if the issue is resolved?

[imathews]

Just tried this out — this release seems to do the trick (no more warnings on build, and otherwise h5web continues to work great). Thanks @axelboc!

[axelboc]

Great to hear! 🎉