Add production fingerprinting instructions

infinum / webpack-asset-pipeline

🚀 A missing link for the asset pipeline alternative with Webpack.

https://infinum.co/the-capsized-eight/squeezing-webpack-into-backend-frameworks

MIT License

30 stars 5 forks source link

Add production fingerprinting instructions #15

Closed syndbg closed 7 years ago

syndbg commented 7 years ago

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

[ ] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
[X] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)

[ ] Bugfix
[ ] Feature
[ ] Code style update (formatting, local variables)
[ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
[ ] Build related changes
[ ] CI related changes
[X] Other... Please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Other information:

Added production fingerprinting instructions to the README.md.

andreicek commented 7 years ago

Hi!

First of all, I would like to thank you for your time and contribution! :tada: Can you explain a bit more why the exact format is needed?

What you use in the example is:

'[name]-bundle.js-chunkhash-[chunkhash]'

When a version of the code that would replicate the gain would look like:

'[name]-bundle-chunkhash-[chunkhash].js'

or even

'[name]-bundle-chunkhash-[hash].js'

In those two cases, Webpack would handle the names and report the "correct" one.

{
  "main.js": "main-bundle-chunkhash-aaefcea3d6d1f037c822-bundle.js"
}

If you think that that exact format is important we'll automate the process for using it (cleaning up the filename).

Again, thanks!

andreicek commented 7 years ago

@gabskoro Would love your input as well!

syndbg commented 7 years ago

@andreicek No particular reason whatsoever. I wasn't aware that Webpack would automagically strip the [chunkhash]if it's in the filename. 👍

Just '[name]-bundle-[chunkhash].js', does the job.

If it's worth adding this in the docs, I would modify the PR. Either way you solved my problem without the need of a custom key function 😄

andreicek commented 7 years ago

Thanks for the clarification!

The README is getting a bit crowded so I'll have to rework it and separate it into different files or something like that. I've created an issue #17 for this to handle. We'll have to decide how before we write a new README.