Skip to content

Unable to require/import files other than main export in Node #2078

Closed

Description

@tylersticka

Overview

We currently define an exports field in our package.json, with additional files (such as compiled tokens) available via other fields.

But according to the Node docs, this prevents other files from being imported:

When the "exports" field is defined, all subpaths of the package are encapsulated and no longer available to importers. For example, require('pkg/subpath.js') throws an ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED error.

I've experienced this in a project where I wanted to import our design tokens.

Steps to reproduce

You can follow these steps to create a barebone test case project:

  1. Create a directory: mkdir cloudfour-export-issue
  2. Enter that directory: cd cloudfour-export-issue
  3. Initialize a new npm project: npm init -y
  4. Install our patterns: npm i -D @cloudfour/patterns
  5. Create a script that attempts to require tokens:printf "const tokens = require(\"@cloudfour/patterns/src/compiled/tokens/json/tokens.json\");" > index.js
  6. Run script: node index

Here is an example of the error you will likely see:

node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:499
      throw e;
      ^

Error [ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED]: Package subpath './src/compiled/tokens/json/tokens.json' is not defined by "exports" in /PATH/TO/cloudfour-export-issue/node_modules/@cloudfour/patterns/package.json
    at new NodeError (node:internal/errors:387:5)
    at throwExportsNotFound (node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:464:9)
    at packageExportsResolve (node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:748:3)
    at resolveExports (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:493:36)
    at Function.Module._findPath (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:533:31)
    at Function.Module._resolveFilename (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:942:27)
    at Function.Module._load (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:804:27)
    at Module.require (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1028:19)
    at require (node:internal/modules/cjs/helpers:102:18)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/tylersticka/Repos/exports-test/index.js:1:16) {
  code: 'ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED'
}

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Dec 16, 2022
  2. spaceninja commented on Dec 16, 2022

    @spaceninja
    Member

    I dug into this a bit, but I'm putting it back because it requires a bit more discussion (and, frankly, a check-in with @calebeby about the right path forward).

    My (admittedly shallow) understanding is that exports is the new standard, aiming to replace main and module, and has the capability of conditional exports. However, it also introduces the new side effect that @tylersticka mentioned.

    My gut says the right answer is to remove exports in favor of our main and module lines, unless exports is giving us some advantage or feature that I'm missing.

    A quick survey of how some other pattern libraries handle this:

  3. removed their assignment
    on Dec 16, 2022
  4. calebeby commented on Dec 16, 2022

    @calebeby
    Contributor

    You can use glob-like patterns in export maps. It looks like the documentation says that in their glob syntax * matches subpaths as well so in their example an export map like this:

      "exports": {
        "./features/*.js": "./src/features/*.js"
      },

    would allow importing a file like this:

    import featureY from 'es-module-package/features/y/y.js';

    main is standardized in node, but not for importing of esm files from esm files (that was always nonstandard and only implemented by bundlers).
    module, jsnext:main, es2015, and es2017 are all nonstandard, just implemented by some bundlers and tools.

    I think we should stick to export maps and add the globs as needed.

  5. added theissue type on May 15, 2025
  6. spaceninja commented on Aug 22, 2026

    @spaceninja
    Member

    Still true, and measuring it turned up a contradiction worth recording alongside the original report.

    exports is now a bare string:

    "exports": "./dist/cloudfour-patterns.mjs"

    which encapsulates every subpath. Tested by symlinking the package into a scratch project and resolving as a consumer would:

    Specifier Result
    @cloudfour/patterns resolves
    @cloudfour/patterns/src/compiled/tokens/json/tokens.json ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED
    @cloudfour/patterns/src/compiled/tokens/scss/_color.scss ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED
    @cloudfour/patterns/src/components/button/button.scss ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED
    @cloudfour/patterns/package.json ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED

    Even package.json is blocked, which trips up tooling that reads a dependency's manifest.

    The contradiction

    npm pack --dry-run reports 361 files in the tarball. files deliberately publishes /dist, /src/compiled/tokens, /src/**/*.scss, /src/**/*.twig and /src/assets.

    Exactly one of those 361 files is reachable through Node resolution. We are deliberately shipping design tokens, Sass partials, Twig templates and SVG assets, and exports then declares all of them private. The two fields disagree about what the public API is, and files is the one expressing the intent.

    One nuance that matters for the fix

    Sass is not affected the same way. Compiling against the package with loadPaths: ['node_modules'] resolves fine:

    @use '@cloudfour/patterns/src/compiled/tokens/scss/color';
    .x { color: color.$base-blue-lighter; }  // -> #8abfff

    That path bypasses Node resolution entirely, so Sass consumers have not been broken and would not notice. It is the JS side — require/import of the JSON and JS token builds, which is exactly what the original report hit — that is blocked. Any fix should keep the Sass route working while unblocking the Node one.

    Shape of the fix

    Replacing the string with a map of subpaths, roughly:

    "exports": {
      ".": "./dist/cloudfour-patterns.mjs",
      "./dist/*": "./dist/*",
      "./src/compiled/tokens/*": "./src/compiled/tokens/*",
      "./package.json": "./package.json"
    }

    Widening exports is additive, so it is not a breaking change. The real decision is which of the 361 files we mean to support, because whatever is listed becomes API we are committing to. That decision is closely related to #2427, from the opposite direction: that issue is about three symbols we publish and never intended to expose, this one is about files we intended to expose and cannot reach. Both are the same underlying question of what our public surface actually is, and they are probably worth answering together.

    Related: #2427, #2391.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    👷 environmentSetup, build tools, configuration, etc.

    Type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions