feat: add the function of automatically importing single component packages to speed up user compilation and building #1
Conversation
…packages to speed up user compilation and building
WalkthroughThe changes update documentation and module declarations related to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant U as User/Build System
participant P as Plugin (src/index.ts)
participant R as Resolver Function
U->>P: Call default function(name, mode)
alt mode indicates single import
P->>R: Invoke TinyVueSingleResolver(name)
else other mode
P->>R: Invoke TinyVueResolver(name)
end
R-->>P: Return formatted import path
P-->>U: Return resolver result
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/index.ts (1)
34-47: Add error handling for invalid component names.The TinyVueSingleResolver implementation looks good but could be improved with error handling.
Consider adding error handling:
export const TinyVueSingleResolver = (componentName: string) => { + if (!componentName || typeof componentName !== 'string') { + throw new Error('Component name must be a non-empty string') + } + const importName = `@opentiny/vue-${kebabCase(componentName.slice(4))}` if (TinyVueFunc.includes(componentName)) { return importName } if (componentName.startsWith('Tiny') && !componentName.startsWith('TinyIcon')) { return importName } + return null }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
README.md(1 hunks)example/auto-imports.d.ts(1 hunks)example/components.d.ts(1 hunks)example/package.json(2 hunks)example/vite.config.js(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)src/index.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
example/auto-imports.d.ts (1)
9-11: LGTM! Type declarations updated for single component imports.The changes correctly update the type declarations to reference default exports from individual packages, which aligns with the PR objective of enabling single component imports for better build performance.
example/components.d.ts (1)
12-13: LGTM! Type declarations updated for single component imports.The changes correctly update the type declarations to reference default exports from individual packages, maintaining consistency with auto-imports.d.ts.
example/vite.config.js (1)
6-6: LGTM! Configuration updated for single component imports.The changes correctly configure both Components and AutoImport plugins to use TinyVueSingleResolver, enabling single component imports as intended.
Also applies to: 14-14, 17-17
example/package.json (1)
12-17: LGTM! Dependencies updated consistently.All @opentiny dependencies are consistently updated to version ~3.21.0, which aligns with the new single component import feature.
Let's verify the compatibility of these versions:
✅ Verification successful
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for compatibility issues between dependencies # Check if all packages are available on npm with specified version for pkg in "@opentiny/vue" "@opentiny/vue-modal" "@opentiny/vue-button" "@opentiny/vue-loading" "@opentiny/vue-notify" "@opentiny/vue-icon"; do echo "Checking $pkg..." npm view "$pkg@~3.21.0" version doneLength of output: 1687
Verified: Dependencies are consistent and align with the required version range.
- The shell script confirms that each package is available with the
~3.21.0semver range.- For
@opentiny/vue, the output shows patch updates (3.21.0, 3.21.1, 3.21.2), which is expected with the tilde operator.- All other dependencies (
@opentiny/vue-modal,@opentiny/vue-button,@opentiny/vue-loading,@opentiny/vue-notify,@opentiny/vue-icon) are available at version 3.21.0.package.json (1)
18-18: LGTM! Added workspace-aware start script.The new script correctly uses pnpm workspace feature to target the example app.
Let's verify the workspace setup:
✅ Verification successful
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify pnpm workspace configuration # Check if pnpm-workspace.yaml exists if [ -f "pnpm-workspace.yaml" ]; then echo "Found workspace config" cat pnpm-workspace.yaml else echo "Warning: pnpm-workspace.yaml not found" fi # Check if example directory is properly configured if [ -d "example" ]; then echo "Found example directory" if [ -f "example/package.json" ]; then echo "Found example package.json" cat example/package.json | grep "name" fi fiLength of output: 441
Workspace configuration verified: pnpm-workspace.yaml and example app are set up correctly.
pnpm-workspace.yamlexists with the "example" package defined.- The
example/package.jsonconfirms the package name"my-vue-app", matching the filter used in the start script.README.md (3)
16-40: LGTM! Clear documentation for recommended single component imports.The documentation effectively explains the recommended approach using
TinyVueSingleResolverwith clear examples for both Vite and Webpack configurations.
64-77: LGTM! Important note about pnpm dependencies.The documentation properly addresses the phantom dependencies issue in pnpm projects and provides clear guidance on declaring component dependencies.
79-125: LGTM! Documentation for alternative multi-component imports.The documentation clearly explains why this approach is not recommended (tree-shaking limitations for non-js files) and provides configuration examples.
| export default (name, mode) => { | ||
| // 兼容webpack/vite的差异 | ||
| const autoPlugin = supportMap[name].default || supportMap[name] | ||
| const Resolver = mode === 'single' ? TinyVueSingleResolver : TinyVueResolver | ||
|
|
||
| return autoPlugin({ | ||
| resolvers: [TinyVueResolver] | ||
| resolvers: [Resolver] | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add type definition and validation for mode parameter.
The mode parameter needs proper TypeScript type definition and validation.
Consider adding type definition and validation:
-export default (name, mode) => {
+type BuilderName = keyof typeof supportMap
+type ResolverMode = 'single' | undefined
+
+export default (name: BuilderName, mode?: ResolverMode) => {
// 兼容webpack/vite的差异
const autoPlugin = supportMap[name].default || supportMap[name]
+ if (mode && mode !== 'single') {
+ throw new Error('Invalid mode. Expected "single" or undefined')
+ }
const Resolver = mode === 'single' ? TinyVueSingleResolver : TinyVueResolver
return autoPlugin({
resolvers: [Resolver]
})
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export default (name, mode) => { | |
| // 兼容webpack/vite的差异 | |
| const autoPlugin = supportMap[name].default || supportMap[name] | |
| const Resolver = mode === 'single' ? TinyVueSingleResolver : TinyVueResolver | |
| return autoPlugin({ | |
| resolvers: [TinyVueResolver] | |
| resolvers: [Resolver] | |
| }) | |
| type BuilderName = keyof typeof supportMap | |
| type ResolverMode = 'single' | undefined | |
| export default (name: BuilderName, mode?: ResolverMode) => { | |
| // 兼容webpack/vite的差异 | |
| const autoPlugin = supportMap[name].default || supportMap[name] | |
| if (mode && mode !== 'single') { | |
| throw new Error('Invalid mode. Expected "single" or undefined') | |
| } | |
| const Resolver = mode === 'single' ? TinyVueSingleResolver : TinyVueResolver | |
| return autoPlugin({ | |
| resolvers: [Resolver] | |
| }) | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
README.md (1)
11-11:⚠️ Potential issueFix the yarn installation command.
The yarn command is incorrect. It should use
addinstead ofi.-yarn i @opentiny/unplugin-tiny-vue -D +yarn add @opentiny/unplugin-tiny-vue -D
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)
68-70: Consider using more restrictive version ranges.While using
~3.x.xallows patch updates, it might be safer to use more specific version ranges to prevent unexpected breaking changes.- "@opentiny/vue-button": "~3.x.x", - "@opentiny/vue-alert": "~3.x.x", - "@opentiny/vue-input": "~3.x.x", + "@opentiny/vue-button": "^3.0.0", + "@opentiny/vue-alert": "^3.0.0", + "@opentiny/vue-input": "^3.0.0",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
README.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
README.md (2)
16-59: Well-documented recommended approach!The single component import section is well-structured and provides clear examples for both Vite and Webpack configurations. The recommendation to use
TinyVueSingleResolverfor improved compilation and build speed is valuable.
76-119: Clear explanation of the non-recommended approach!The multi-component import section effectively communicates the limitations of this approach, particularly regarding tree-shaking of non-js files, while still providing complete documentation for both Vite and Webpack configurations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/labeler.yaml (2)
3-28: Consider adding descriptions for the labels.The label matchers correctly follow conventional commit format. However, adding descriptions would improve maintainability and help contributors understand the purpose of each label.
labels: - label: "enhancement" sync: true + description: "New features and improvements" matcher: title: "^feat.*: ?.*" commit: "^feat.*: ?.*" - label: "bug" sync: true + description: "Bug fixes and patches" matcher: title: "^fix.*: ?.*" commit: "^fix.*: ?.*" - label: "documentation" sync: true + description: "Documentation updates" matcher: title: "^docs?: ?.*" commit: "^docs?: ?.*" - label: "refactoring" sync: true + description: "Code refactoring without feature changes" matcher: title: "^refactor.*: ?.*" commit: "^refactor.*: ?.*" - label: "chore" sync: true + description: "Maintenance tasks and dependency updates" matcher: title: "^chore.*: ?.*" commit: "^chore.*: ?.*"
1-33: Consider adding more comprehensive commit types.The current configuration covers basic commit types, but you might want to add more conventional commit types for better categorization.
labels: + - label: "breaking" + sync: true + description: "Breaking changes" + matcher: + title: "^breaking.*: ?.*" + commit: "^breaking.*: ?.*" + - label: "test" + sync: true + description: "Test additions or updates" + matcher: + title: "^test.*: ?.*" + commit: "^test.*: ?.*" + - label: "ci" + sync: true + description: "CI/CD changes" + matcher: + title: "^ci.*: ?.*" + commit: "^ci.*: ?.*"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/labeler.yaml(1 hunks)example/vite.config.js(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- example/vite.config.js
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/labeler.yaml (2)
1-2: LGTM! Version declaration is correct.The version declaration follows the standard format for GitHub Actions labeler configuration.
29-33:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify the base branch pattern for OSPP 2024.
The
ospp-2024label uses a base branch pattern. Please ensure this aligns with your branching strategy for the Open Source Promotion Plan 2024.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if any branches match the OSPP 2024 pattern git branch -r | grep -E "ospp-2024/"Length of output: 36
OSPP 2024 Base Branch Verification Required
The current
baseBranchpattern for theospp-2024label (“^ospp-2024/.*”) did not match any remote branches based on your script output. Please manually verify that this naming pattern aligns with your intended branch strategy for the Open Source Promotion Plan 2024. If branches are expected to follow a different naming convention or are yet to be created, adjust the pattern or update the branch names accordingly.
kagol
changed the title
添加自动导入单组件包功能，加快用户编译和构建速度
Summary by CodeRabbit