Tooling in the ecosystem have been using the __esModule property to
recognize transpiled ESM in consuming code. For example, a 'log'
package written in ESM:
export function log(val) { console.log(val); }
Can be transpiled as:
exports.__esModule = true;
exports.default = function log(val) { console.log(val); }
The consuming code may be written like this in ESM:
import log from 'log'
Which gets transpiled to:
const _mod = require('log');
const log = _mod.__esModule ? _mod.default : _mod;
So to allow transpiled consuming code to recognize require()'d real ESM
as ESM and pick up the default exports, we add a __esModule property by
building a source text module facade for any module that has a default
export and add .__esModule = true to the exports. We don't do this to
modules that don't have default exports to avoid the unnecessary
overhead. This maintains the enumerability of the re-exported names
and the live binding of the exports.
The source of the facade is defined as a constant per-isolate property
required_module_facade_source_string, which looks like this
export * from 'original';
export { default } from 'original';
export const __esModule = true;
And the 'original' module request is always resolved by
createRequiredModuleFacade() to wrap which is a ModuleWrap wrapping
over the original module.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/52166
Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/52134
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Guy Bedford <guybedford@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Geoffrey Booth <webadmin@geoffreybooth.com>
Previously there is an edge case where submodules loaded by require()
may not be loaded by import() again from different intermediate
edges in the graph. This patch fixes that, added tests, and added
debug logs.
Drive-by: make loader a private field so it doesn't show up in logs.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/52487
Reviewed-By: Geoffrey Booth <webadmin@geoffreybooth.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
