Skip to content

docs: mention bun.lock for lockfile #20210

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs: mention bun.lock for lockfile #20210

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion docs/guide/dep-pre-bundling.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ You can further customize esbuild too with the [`optimizeDeps.esbuildOptions` op

Vite caches the pre-bundled dependencies in `node_modules/.vite`. It determines whether it needs to re-run the pre-bundling step based on a few sources:

- Package manager lockfile content, e.g. `package-lock.json`, `yarn.lock`, `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `bun.lockb`.
- Package manager lockfile content, e.g. `package-lock.json`, `yarn.lock`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `bun.lock` or `bun.lockb`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- Package manager lockfile content, e.g. `package-lock.json`, `yarn.lock`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `bun.lock` or `bun.lockb`.
- Package manager lockfile content, e.g. `package-lock.json`, `yarn.lock`, `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `bun.lock`

Since this list is just an example, I think it's fine to remove bun.lockb because bun.lock has been added instead.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In that case, this PR is irrelevant because it's just an example. Either keep both or close this PR in my opinion

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sapphi-red , @WarningImHack3r , with respect I want to tell one thing if you allow. I have seen in the codebase that both bun.lock and bun.lockb are present. Can't we add both here also then ?

vite/packages/vite/src/node/optimizer/index.ts

Line 1231 in 3bf3a8a

path: 'bun.lock',

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Having both feels too verbose. Since bun.lock is the new default for bun, I think bun.lock should be listed instead of bun.lockb.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see. Thank you for your opinion, @sapphi-red .

- Patches folder modification time.
- Relevant fields in your `vite.config.js`, if present.
- `NODE_ENV` value.
Expand Down