[BUG] Non-system library tiddlers get deleted

[flibbles]

Describe the bug

Library tiddlers (as in tiddlers that have library=yes, like sjcl.js), are excluded from being written to the general tiddler store because the saveTiddlerFilter has -[type[application/javascript]library[yes]] in it. Instead, they are written into the special Library Modules block that gets executed immediately upon load. Its transclude filter uses [is[system]type[application/javascript]library[yes]].

See the difference? [is[system]]. That means nonsystem library modules don't end up existing anywhere. If you make one, it will be gone after you save like any $:/temp tiddler would be.

This is super minor. I know I'm the only person to notice this. I only did because I'm looking into using library modules for Uglify as a means to more consistently alter the //# sourceMappingURL= directive that gets attached to modules, and thus allow for better sourceMapping.

I actually do want the non-persistent library tiddler feature, so I might make use of this, except it looks like a bug which might get fixed out from under me. If this is an oversight, I can fix it and instead use $:/temp directly.

Expected behavior

No response

To Reproduce

1. Go to '...'
2. Click on '....'
3. Scroll down to '....'
4. See error

Screenshots

No response

TiddlyWiki Configuration

All Tiddlywikis

Additional context

No response

[pmario]

I actually do want the non-persistent library tiddler feature, so I might make use of this, except it looks like a bug which might get fixed out from under me. If this is an oversight, I can fix it and instead use $:/temp directly.

hmmm, I would go with $:/temp, if it does not cause any problems.

I think the 2 filters you listed, actually are an "inconsistency". We did not have any "bug reports" I can remember, where users actually lost data. -- but anyway.

[Jermolene]

Thanks @flibbles, that is indeed a bug. This feature has been around since the very beginning, but has never been widely tested apart from the usage in the core. I do think it would be worth fixing for consistency and clarity if nothing else.

[flibbles]

Sure, I can create a PR. The way I'd fix it is to make the [is[system]] consistent. These are my reasons:

• If someone knows enough about TiddlyWiki that they're designing their own boot libraries, then they're already familiar with system tiddlers.
• Also, having a non-system boot module would make it more visible to end-users, and they absolutely should not be edited in the browser. It could cause the wiki to stop loading.
• I can't imagine why, but it seems possible that some user somewhere might have a "javascript snippet collection" tiddlywiki, and if they use library as a field, and if they ever put it as a 'yes', they'll brick their tiddlywiki.
• (It makes it much more convenient for my upcoming-improved uglifier, though I know these reasons shouldn't count.)

I'll put it together hopefully this weekend.

[Jermolene]

Thanks @flibbles – I agree that on balance this is worth fixing.