Missing "./package.json" in package.json "exports"

[artuska]

Initial checklist

• [X] I read the support docs
• [X] I read the contributing guide
• [X] I agree to follow the code of conduct
• [X] I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)

Problem

Missing "./package.json" in package.json "exports":

"exports": {
   ".": "./index.js",
  "./internal-create-format-aware-processors": "./lib/util/create-format-aware-processors.js",
  "./internal-extnames-to-regex": "./lib/util/extnames-to-regex.js"
},

Solution

Just add "./package.json" in package.json "exports" like that:

"exports": {
  "./package.json": "./package.json",
   ".": "./index.js",
  "./internal-create-format-aware-processors": "./lib/util/create-format-aware-processors.js",
  "./internal-extnames-to-regex": "./lib/util/extnames-to-regex.js"
},

Alternatives

Just add "./package.json" in package.json "exports".

[ChristianMurphy]

Welcome @artuska! 👋 I'm open to adding the package to the exports. Could you expand a bit on what you want out of that file? And why or how you want to leverage it?

[artuska]

This feature is related to the Vite issue — https://github.com/originjs/vite-plugin-federation/issues/357

[ChristianMurphy]

@artuska it looks like a bug in an abandoned module https://github.com/originjs/vite-plugin-federation/issues/597 And that it is no longer recommended https://github.com/originjs/vite-plugin-federation/issues/597#issuecomment-2395491268

Try migrating to https://github.com/module-federation/vite

I'd hold on making changes here because:

1. it's not clear why the package is needed by the tool in the first place
2. it's an abandoned tool, and I don't think it's a good idea to try to change the entire npm ecosystem to try to fix abandoned tools

[wooorm]

Paraphrasing the argument here, some unmaintained, uncommon, tool is broken and an error can disappear when we add package.json to exports. There are viable alternatives: migrating to a maintained alternative or patch-package. I don’t think that’s a good story for changing things here.

For me, it is intentional that package.jsons are not part of the public API. We can have a discussion about adding them to all packages. We could test a small subset of course and it doesn’t have to be all at once. But still: I’m not convinced yet and that would be a whole discussion about trade offs, so more something for https://github.com/unifiedjs/rfcs or so.

That discussion would have little to do with the arguments here. So, closing this issue for now.

[github-actions[bot]]

Hi! This was closed. Team: If this was fixed, please add phase/solved. Otherwise, please add one of the no/* labels.