Closed langemike closed 1 month ago
@langemike is "Chrome 68" something you need for Smart TV devices?
@langemike is "Chrome 68" something you need for Smart TV devices?
Correct!
We discussed the knip ignore and virtual + relative path import via Slack and are planning to make the following (hopefully last) changes:
import 'virtual:polyfills';
virtual:polyfills
to the ignoreDependencies resolveId(id) {
if (id.includes('virtual:polyfills')) {
return '\0' + id;
}
},
load(id) {
if (id.includes('\0virtual:polyfills')) {
return enabled ? `import './polyfills';` : 'export default {};';
}
},
@ChristiaanScheermeijer I ammeded my previous commit and performed the approach you suggested.
I removed the ignore knip-config and put virtual:polyfills
as a peerDependency
to fix Knip's Unlisted dependencies
warning.
We want to support a broader user base by extending our browser support to
chrome68
and up.Vite internally uses
['es2020', 'edge88', 'firefox78', 'chrome87', 'safari14']
. So the only difference is the supported chrome browsers. See https://vitejs.dev/guide/build#browser-compatibility for reference.I only needed to write a CSS fallback for the
dvh
unit because it was the only unsupported CSS feature we have ran into. This change also contains a variable injection fix forindex.html
which has been introduced (with the upgrade to vite 5, I assume).We also did some internal experiments with @vitejs/plugin-legacy, but this change has a bigger impact on our bundle/build. If we even want to broaden our browser support further than
chrome68
then@vitejs/plugin-legacy
would definitely be a viable option.I've tested this on Chrome 68 using browserstack.
Our original PR: https://github.com/Videodock/ott-web-app/pull/186 Our
@vitejs/plugin-legacy
experiment PR (for reference): https://github.com/Videodock/ott-web-app/pull/182