ts_project doesn't seem to support JS sources

[paullewis]

If I use a JS source and a custom transpiler with ts_project like this:

load("@aspect_rules_swc//swc:defs.bzl", "swc_transpiler")
load("@aspect_rules_ts//ts:defs.bzl", "ts_project")
ts_project(
    name = "src",
    srcs = [
        "index.js",
    ],
    allow_js = True,
    declaration = True,
    transpiler = swc_transpiler,
    tsconfig = "//:tsconfig",
)

The JS is excluded and the length of js_outs doesn't match the length of srcs resulting in an error:

Error in fail: ERROR: illegal state: transpile_srcs has length 1 but js_outs has length 0

If instead I use the default tsc then it's unhappy because it would overwrite the copied source file:

error TS5055: Cannot write file 'src/index.js' because it would overwrite input file.

If I then set out an out_dir to something like "foo" it throws an error saying that:

output 'src/foo/index.d.ts' was not created

From the above it's not clear how I should be using ts_project with JS source files. Am I holding it wrong?

Thanks!

[thesayyn]

the first case is expected and is a result of how rules_js works. You can not have inputs & outputs that have the same name. you see that error because ts_project + transpiler fails before bazel itself.

the second one is expected to happen and can only be avoided using the out_dir attribute.

the third case ought to work but looks like something is broken there.

[alexeagle]

For case 1, I'd expect you to get this error: https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_swc/commit/245f582ee0abab5aacf6c32ed18ed5578d6d05ba#diff-1444361579758fc6be4458b5105b2ee3ee623d72154094c3fa1fd9056845903eR75 saying that you need an out_dir to get swc to do .js->.js

[paullewis]

In some codebases it's not uncommon to have TS & JS alongside one another, especially during a migration from – say – JS to TS. In those cases, where there's effectively a single target with a mix of source types, I'd have expected to be able to mix JS & TS in the same way as I can with the TS compiler directly outside of Bazel. In the most general sense the TS compiler can handle JS inputs, of course, so it's unusual that it's effectively disallowed here. I appreciate that the source file is being copied to the bin dir to ease the issues that were present in rules_nodejs, though.

I guess there are a couple of questions this raises for me:

1. Is there a correct way to mix JS & TS sources with ts_project?
2. If the out_dir works, how would you teach other targets that use this about the location of the files? The imports will expect to find the outputs in src/ and not src/foo (where foo is the out_dir).

[alexeagle]

Yup, agreed about the use case, it's reasonable and important.

The most practical answer is to give different filenames somehow. For example src/foo.jsx -> bazel-bin/foo.js or src/foo.js -> bazel-bin/foo.{mjs,cjs}. Then you don't need an out_dir.

For 2 - yes the added path segment in the out_dir needs to be known to tools that resolve imports. However, it's quite common that JS developers output things to a folder like build/ or dist/ so this is possible with all tools. For TS you'd use pathMapping like this example https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_ts/blob/main/examples/root_dirs/BUILD.bazel

There's a nuance here, which is whether you expect the .js file in the output folder to be different from the one in the source folder (e.g. syntax transpiled in some way). If not, then actually the behavior of copy_to_bin for those files is fine, and we just want to avoid ts_project yelling at you about it.

[gregmagolan]

Taking this off of the 1.0 milestone since a documentation change can land after the 1.0.0 release

[alexeagle]

It's over a year old, our last comment was about a documentation change, and I don't have a current repro. Closing and will let someone report again if we still have a bug.