Introduction
Because there is no build in Auth library for nuxt 3 yet, I am trying to create my own composable called useAuth.
The Problem
I am getting a startPerformanceMeasurement error when i try to call the loginRedirect or loginPopup method.
Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: this.startPerformanceMeasurement is not a function
at PerformanceClient2.startMeasurement (PerformanceClient.ts:100:45)
at BrowserPerformanceClient2.startMeasurement (BrowserPerformanceClient.ts:46:55)
at RedirectClient2.<anonymous> (StandardInteractionClient.ts:204:64)
at step (_tslib.js:87:23)
at Object.next (_tslib.js:68:53)
at _tslib.js:61:71
at new Promise (<anonymous>)
at __awaiter (_tslib.js:57:12)
at StandardInteractionClient2.getDiscoveredAuthority (StandardInteractionClient.ts:202:115)
at RedirectClient2.<anonymous> (StandardInteractionClient.ts:142:48)
Code
composables/useAuth.js
import * as msal from '#azure/msal-browser'
let state = {
authService: null,
}
export const useAuth = () => {
// use public configuration from nuxt
var config = useAppConfig();
//create authentication instance
state.authService = new msal.PublicClientApplication(config.msalConfig);
//return signIn method
return {
signIn
}
}
const signIn = async () => {
const tokenRequest = {
scopes: [
'openid',
'offline_access',
'Users.Read'
],
}
const response = await state.authService
.loginRedirect(tokenRequest)
.then(() => {
})
.catch(err => {
console.log(err) //TypeError: this.startPerformanceMeasurement is not a function
});
}
Index.vue
<script setup>
if(process.client) {
const auth = useAuth()
auth.signIn()
}
</script>
Apparently this is a bug in the MSAL library.
As mentioned in this issue on Github, they're currently working on a fix.
As a temporary solution, you could downgrade to a previous version. Downgrading might be as simple as just removing the caret character (^) when referring to the version in your package.json.
Edit: They've released a fix as part of msal-common v9.1.1.
I tested by downgrading multiple releases and the first one working was #azure/msal-browser#2.31.0
Faced this issue too. It is caused due to a bug from Microsoft. The versions that work fine are:
"#azure/msal-browser": "2.32.0",
"#azure/msal-common": "9.0.1",
"#azure/msal-react": "1.5.0",
Please ensure to remove the ^ in the number to keep it pinned.
Watch https://github.com/AzureAD/microsoft-authentication-library-for-js/issues/5569 for updates from MS.
Unable to identify what's happening in my next.js app. As fs is a default file system module of nodejs. It is giving the error of module not found.
If you use fs, be sure it's only within getInitialProps or getServerSideProps. (anything includes server-side rendering).
You may also need to create a next.config.js file with the following content to get the client bundle to build:
For webpack4
module.exports = {
webpack: (config, { isServer }) => {
// Fixes npm packages that depend on `fs` module
if (!isServer) {
config.node = {
fs: 'empty'
}
}
return config
}
}
For webpack5
module.exports = {
webpack5: true,
webpack: (config) => {
config.resolve.fallback = { fs: false };
return config;
},
};
Note: for other modules such as path, you can add multiple arguments such as
{
fs: false,
path: false
}
I spent hours on this and the solution is also here on Stackoverflow but on different issue -> https://stackoverflow.com/a/67478653/17562602
Hereby I asked for MOD permission to reshare this, since this issue is the first one to show up on Google and probably more and more people stumble would upon the same problem as I am, so I'll try to saved them some sweats
Soo, You need to add this in your next.config.js
module.exports = {
future: {
webpack5: true, // by default, if you customize webpack config, they switch back to version 4.
// Looks like backward compatibility approach.
},
webpack(config) {
config.resolve.fallback = {
...config.resolve.fallback, // if you miss it, all the other options in fallback, specified
// by next.js will be dropped. Doesn't make much sense, but how it is
fs: false, // the solution
};
return config;
},
};
It works for like a charm for me
Minimal reproducible example
A clean minimal example will be beneficial to Webpack beginners since auto splitting based on usage is so mind-blowingly magic.
Working hello world baseline:
pages/index.js
// Client + server code.
export default function IndexPage(props) {
return <div>{props.msg}</div>
}
// Server-only code.
export function getStaticProps() {
return { props: { msg: 'hello world' } }
}
package.json
{
"name": "test",
"version": "1.0.0",
"scripts": {
"dev": "next",
"build": "next build",
"start": "next start"
},
"dependencies": {
"next": "12.0.7",
"react": "17.0.2",
"react-dom": "17.0.2"
}
}
Run with:
npm install
npm run dev
Now let's add a dummy require('fs') to blow things up:
// Client + server code.
export default function IndexPage(props) {
return <div>{props.msg}</div>
}
// Server-only code.
const fs = require('fs')
export function getStaticProps() {
return { props: { msg: 'hello world' } }
}
fails with:
Module not found: Can't resolve 'fs'
which is not too surprising, since there was no way for Next.js to know that that fs was server only, and we wouldn't want it to just ignore random require errors, right? Next.js only knows that for getStaticProps because that's a hardcoded Next.js function name.
OK, so let's inform Next.js by using fs inside getStaticProps, the following works again:
// Client + server code.
export default function IndexPage(props) {
return <div>{props.msg}</div>
}
// Server-only code.
const fs = require('fs')
export function getStaticProps() {
fs
return { props: { msg: 'hello world' } }
}
Mind equals blown. So we understand that any mention of fs inside of the body of getStaticProps, even an useless one like the above, makes Next.js/Webpack understand that it is going to be server-only.
Things would work the same for getServerSideProps and getStaticPaths.
Higher order components (HOCs) have to be in their own files
Now, the way that we factor out IndexPage and getStaticProps across different but similar pages is to use HOCs, which are just functions that return other functions.
HOCs will normally be put outside of pages/ and then required from multiple locations, but when you are about to factor things out to generalize, you might be tempted to put them directly in the pages/ file temporarily, something like:
// Client + server code.
import Link from 'next/link'
export function makeIndexPage(isIndex) {
return (props) => {
return <>
<Link href={isIndex ? '/index' : '/notindex'}>
<a>{isIndex ? 'index' : 'notindex'}</a>
</Link>
<div>{props.fs}</div>
<div>{props.isBlue}</div>
</>
}
}
export default makeIndexPage(true)
// Server-only code.
const fs = require('fs')
export function makeGetStaticProps(isBlue) {
return () => {
return { props: {
fs: Object.keys(fs).join(' '),
isBlue,
} }
}
}
export const getStaticProps = makeGetStaticProps(true)
but if you do this you will be saddened to see:
Module not found: Can't resolve 'fs'
So we understand another thing: the fs usage has to be directly inside the getStaticProps function body, Webpack can't catch it in subfunctions.
The only way to solve this is to have a separate file for the backend-only stuff as in:
pages/index.js
// Client + server code.
import { makeIndexPage } from "../front"
export default makeIndexPage(true)
// Server-only code.
import { makeGetStaticProps } from "../back"
export const getStaticProps = makeGetStaticProps(true)
pages/notindex.js
// Client + server code.
import { makeIndexPage } from "../front"
export default makeIndexPage(false)
// Server-only code.
import { makeGetStaticProps } from "../back"
export const getStaticProps = makeGetStaticProps(false)
front.js
// Client + server code.
import Link from 'next/link'
export function makeIndexPage(isIndex) {
return (props) => {
console.error('page');
return <>
<Link href={isIndex ? '/notindex' : '/'}>
<a>{isIndex ? 'notindex' : 'index'}</a>
</Link>
<div>{props.fs}</div>
<div>{props.isBlue}</div>
</>
}
}
back.js
// Server-only code.
const fs = require('fs')
export function makeGetStaticProps(isBlue) {
return () => {
return { props: {
fs: Object.keys(fs).join(' '),
isBlue,
} }
}
}
Webpack must see that name makeGetStaticProps getting assigned to getStaticProps, so it decides that the entire back file is server-only.
Note that it does not work if you try to merge back.js and front.js into a single file, probably because when you do export default makeIndexPage(true) webpack necessarily tries to pull the entire front.js file into the frontend, which includes the fs, so it fails.
This leads to a natural (and basically almost mandatory) split of library files between:
front.js and front/*: front-end + backend files. These are safe for the frontend. And the backend can do whatever the frontend can do (we are doing SSR right?) so those are also usable from the backend.
Perhaps this is the idea behind the conventional "components" folder in many official examples. But that is a bad name, because that folder should not only contain components, but also any library non-component helpers/constants that will be used from the frontend.
back.js and back/* (or alternatively anything outside of front/*): backend only files. These can only be used by the backend, importing them on frontend will lead to the error
fs,path or other node native modules can be used only inside server-side code, like "getServerSide" functions. If you try to use it in client you get error even you just console.log it.. That console.log should run inside server-side functions as well.
When you import "fs" and use it in server-side, next.js is clever enough to see that you use it in server-side so it wont add that import into the client bundle
One of the packages that I used was giving me this error, I fixed this with
module.exports = {
webpack: (config, { isServer }) => {
if (!isServer) {
config.resolve.fallback.fs = false
}
return config
},
}
but this was throwing warning on terminal:
"Critical dependency: require function is used in a way in which
dependencies cannot be statically extracted"
Then I tried to load the node module on the browser. I copied the "min.js" of the node module from the node_modules and placed in "public/js/myPackage.js" and load it with Script
export default function BaseLayout({children}) {
return (
<>
<Script
// this in public folder
src="/js/myPackage.js"
// this means this script will be loaded first
strategy="beforeInteractive"
/>
</>
)
}
This package was attached to window object and in node_modules source code's index.js:
if (typeof window !== "undefined") {
window.TruffleContract = contract;
}
So I could access to this script as window.TruffleContract. BUt this was not an efficient way.
While this error requires a bit more reasoning than most errors you'll encounter, it happens for a straightforward reason.
Why this happens
Next.js, unlike many frameworks allows you to import server-only (Node.js APIs that don't work in a browser) code into your page files. When Next.js builds your project, it removes server only code from your client-side bundle by checking which code exists inside one any of the following built-in methods (code splitting):
getServerSideProps
getStaticProps
getStaticPaths
Side note: there is a demo app that visualizes how this works.
The Module not found: can't resolve 'xyz' error happens when you try to use server only code outside of these methods.
Error example 1 - basic
To reproduce this error, let's start with a working simple Next.js page file.
WORKING file
/** THIS FILE WORKS FINE! */
import type { GetServerSideProps } from "next";
import fs from "fs"; // our server-only import
type Props = {
doesFileExist: boolean;
};
export const getServerSideProps: GetServerSideProps = async () => {
const fileExists = fs.existsSync("/some-file");
return {
props: {
doesFileExist: fileExists,
},
};
};
const ExamplePage = ({ doesFileExist }: Props) => {
return <div>File exists?: {doesFileExist ? "Yes" : "No"}</div>;
};
export default ExamplePage;
Now, let's reproduce the error by moving our fs.existsSync method outside of getServerSideProps. The difference is subtle, but the code below will throw our dreaded Module not found error.
ERROR file
import type { GetServerSideProps } from "next";
import fs from "fs";
type Props = {
doesFileExist: boolean;
};
/** ERROR!! - Module not found: can't resolve 'fs' */
const fileExists = fs.existsSync("/some-file");
export const getServerSideProps: GetServerSideProps = async () => {
return {
props: {
doesFileExist: fileExists,
},
};
};
const ExamplePage = ({ doesFileExist }: Props) => {
return <div>File exists?: {doesFileExist ? "Yes" : "No"}</div>;
};
export default ExamplePage;
Error example 2 - realistic
The most common (and confusing) occurrence of this error happens when you are using modules that contain multiple types of code (client-side + server-side).
Let's say I have the following module called file-utils.ts:
import fs from 'fs'
// This code only works server-side
export function getFileExistence(filepath: string) {
return fs.existsSync(filepath)
}
// This code works fine on both the server AND the client
export function formatResult(fileExistsResult: boolean) {
return fileExistsResult ? 'Yes, file exists' : 'No, file does not exist'
}
In this module, we have one server-only method and one "shared" method that in theory should work client-side (but as we'll see, theory isn't perfect).
Now, let's try incorporating this into our Next.js page file.
/** ERROR!! */
import type { GetServerSideProps } from "next";
import { getFileExistence, formatResult } from './file-utils.ts'
type Props = {
doesFileExist: boolean;
};
export const getServerSideProps: GetServerSideProps = async () => {
return {
props: {
doesFileExist: getFileExistence('/some-file')
},
};
};
const ExamplePage = ({ doesFileExist }: Props) => {
// ERROR!!!
return <div>File exists?: {formatResult(doesFileExist)}</div>;
};
export default ExamplePage;
As you can see, we get an error here because when we attempt to use formatResult client-side, our module still has to import the server-side code.
To fix this, we need to split our modules up into two categories:
Server only
Shared code (client or server)
// file-utils.ts
import fs from 'fs'
// This code (and entire file) only works server-side
export function getFileExistence(filepath: string) {
return fs.existsSync(filepath)
}
// file-format-utils.ts
// This code works fine on both the server AND the client
export function formatResult(fileExistsResult: boolean) {
return fileExistsResult ? 'Yes, file exists' : 'No, file does not exist'
}
Now, we can create a WORKING page file:
/** WORKING! */
import type { GetServerSideProps } from "next";
import { getFileExistence } from './file-utils.ts' // server only
import { formatResult } from './file-format-utils.ts' // shared
type Props = {
doesFileExist: boolean;
};
export const getServerSideProps: GetServerSideProps = async () => {
return {
props: {
doesFileExist: getFileExistence('/some-file')
},
};
};
const ExamplePage = ({ doesFileExist }: Props) => {
return <div>File exists?: {formatResult(doesFileExist)}</div>;
};
export default ExamplePage;
Solutions
There are 2 ways to solve this:
The "correct" way
The "just get it working" way
The "Correct" way
The best way to solve this error is to make sure that you understand why it is happening (above) and make sure you are only using server-side code inside getStaticPaths, getStaticProps, or getServerSideProps and NOWHERE else.
And remember, if you import a module that contains both server-side and client-side code, you cannot use any of the imports from that module client-side (revisit example #2 above).
The "Just get it working" way
As others have suggested, you can alter your next.config.js to ignore certain modules at build-time. This means that when Next.js attempts to split your page file between server only and shared code, it will not try to polyfill Node.js APIs that fail to build client-side.
In this case, you just need:
/** next.config.js - with Webpack v5.x */
module.exports = {
... other settings ...
webpack: (config, { isServer }) => {
// If client-side, don't polyfill `fs`
if (!isServer) {
config.resolve.fallback = {
fs: false,
};
}
return config;
},
};
Drawbacks of this approach
As shown in the resolve.fallback section of the Webpack documentation, the primary reason for this config option is because as-of Webpack v5.x, core Node.js modules are no longer polyfilled by default. Therefore, the main purpose for this option is to provide a way for you to define which polyfill you want to use.
When you pass false as an option, this means, "do not include a polyfill".
While this works, it can be fragile and require ongoing maintenance to include any new modules that you introduce to your project. Unless you are converting an existing project / supporting legacy code, it is best to go for option #1 above as it promotes better module organization according to how Next.js actually splits the code under the hood.
If trying to use fs-extra in Next.js, this worked for me
module.exports = {
webpack: (config) => {
config.resolve.fallback = { fs: false, path: false, stream: false, constants: false };
return config;
}
}
I got this error in my NextJS app because I was missing export in
export function getStaticProps()
/** #type {import('next').NextConfig} */
module.exports = {
reactStrictMode: false,
webpack5: true,
webpack: (config) => {
config.resolve.fallback = {
fs: false,
net: false,
dns: false,
child_process: false,
tls: false,
};
return config;
},
};
This code fixed my problem and I want to share.Add this code to your next.config file.i'm using
webpack5
For me clearing the cache
npm cache clean -f
and then updating the node version to the latest stable release(14.17.0) worked
It might be that the module you are trying to implement is not supposed to run in a browser. I.e. it's server-side only.
For me, the problem was the old version of the node.js installed. It requires node.js version 14 and higher. The solution was to go to the node.js web page, download the latest version and just install it. And then re-run the project. All worked!
I had the same issue when I was trying to use babel.
For me this worked:
#add a .babelrc file to the root of the project and define presets and plugins
(in my case, I had some issues with the macros of babel, so I defined them)
{
"presets": ["next/babel"],
"plugins": ["macros"]
}
after that shut down your server and run it again
I had this exact issue. My problem was that I was importing types that I had declared in a types.d.ts file.
I was importing it like this, thanks to the autofill provided by VSCode.
import {CUSTOM_TYPE} from './types'
It should have been like this:
import {CUSTOM_TYPE} from './types.d'
In my case, I think the .d was unnecessary so I ended up removing it entirely and renamed my file to types.ts.
Weird enough, it was being imported directly into index.tsx without issues, but any helper files/functions inside the src directory would give me errors.
I ran into this in a NextJS application because I had defined a new helper function directly below getServerSideProps(), but had not yet called that function inside getServerSideProps().
I'm not sure why this created a problem, but it did. I could only get it to work by either calling that function, removing it, or commenting it out.
Don't use fs in the pages directory, since next.js suppose that files in pages directory are running in browser environment.
You could put the util file which uses fs to other directory such as /core
Then require the util in getStaticProps which runs in node.js environment.
// /pages/myPage/index.tsx
import View from './view';
export default View;
export async function getStaticProps() {
const util = require('core/some-util-uses-fs').default; // getStaticProps runs in nodes
const data = await util.getDataFromDisk();
return {
props: {
data,
},
};
}
In my case, this error appeared while refactoring the auth flow of a Next.js page. The cause was some an unused imports that I had not yet removed.
Previously I made the page a protected route like so:
export async function getServerSideProps ({ query, req, res }) {
const session = await unstable_getServerSession(req, res, authOptions)
if (!session) {
return {
redirect: {
destination: '/signin',
permanent: false,
},
}
}
//... rest of server-side logic
}
Whilst refactoring, I read up on NextAuth useSession. Based on what I read there, I was able to change the implementation such that I simply needed to add
MyComponent.auth = true to make a page protected. I then deleted the aforementioned code block inside of getServerSideProps. However, I had not yet deleted the two imports used by said code block:
import { unstable_getServerSession } from 'next-auth/next'
import { authOptions } from 'pages/api/auth/[...nextauth]'
I believe the second of those two imports was causing the problem. So the summary is that in addition to all of the great answers above, it could also be an unused import.
Sometimes this error can be because you have imported something but not mastered it anywhere. This worked for me. I reviewed my code and removed the unused dependencies.
I am trying to set up unit testing for my discord.js bot, but when running npm test in the terminal, while the test is being passed, still gives an error.
This is an image of the test being passed followed by the error:
https://i.imgur.com/m2EOuxc.png
I need to fix this error in testing, while still having the bot being able to function.
I have tried to completely remove the line referenced in the error (and the lines that had something to do with that specific line)
jsfiles.forEach((f, i) => {
let props = require(`./cmds/${f}`)
bot.commands.set(props.help.name, props)
})
Removing this resolved the testing issue, but resulted in the bot not functioning correctly (it did not load the commands; meaning, the bot couldn't be interacted with), which is not the goal here.
I've also checked, that each of the files in the folder cmds ends with
module.exports.help = {
name: '<name of the command I use for each command>'
}
This is the part of my bot.js file that contains the problem.
// Loads the commands for the bot:
fs.readdir('./cmds/', (err, files) => {
if (err) console.error(err)
let jsfiles = files.filter(f => f.split('.').pop() === 'js')
if (jsfiles.length <= 0) {
console.log('No commands to load!')
return
}
if (testingSettings) {
console.log(`Loading ${jsfiles.length} commands!`)
}
// This is the problem referenced above:
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
jsfiles.forEach((f, i) => {
let props = require(`./cmds/${f}`)
bot.commands.set(props.help.name, props)
})
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
})
This is all of my code in the bot.test.js file
const {
// Functions
checkingTesting,
// Variables
testingSettings,
} = require('./bot')
test('checking to see if testing-mode is on', () => {
expect(checkingTesting(testingSettings, 'token')).toBe(process.env['token']);
});
If it is needed. This is the function, variable and exporting method that is used to connect bot.js to bot.test.js:
Variable (in bot.js file)
const testingSettings = false
Function (in bot.js file)
function checkingTesting (testingSettings, name) {
if (testingSettings) {
return testSettings[name]
} else if (!testingSettings) {
return process.env[name]
}
}
Exporting (in bot.js file)
module.exports = {
// Exporting functions
checkingTesting: checkingTesting,
// Exporting variables
testingSettings: testingSettings,
}
props.help is undefined. The required file's exported obj is either empty, doesn't have help, or some other unforeseen event.
A good practice is to always check whether an object key exist prior using it.
if (props && props.help) {
bot.commands.set(props.help.name, props)
} else {
//throw or handle error here
}
In your command file, it seems like there is no help property of module.exports. When you try to read help.name, it throws your error because help is undefined.
Check to make sure that you're declaring module.exports.help in every command file.
We've deployed bugs in our node app b/c we forgot to prefix async function calls with "await".
Example:
const getUsers = async () => db.query('SELECT * from Users');
const testMissingAwait = async () => {
const users = getUsers(); // <<< missing await
console.log(users.length);
};
testMissingAwait();
Is there an easy way to find async function calls missing the await keyword?
Failing that, how much effort would it be to write a Visual Studio Code extension that flags these automatically? (I'm up for tackling if anyone can point me in the right direction).
TypeScript compiler doesn't provide a compiler option for that. However, TSLint 4.4 provides an option to detect floating promises. You can read this blog post for more detailed answer: Detect missing await in typescript
Download TSLint:
npm install -g tslint typescript
Configure TSLint:
{
"extends": "tslint:recommended",
"rules": {
"no-floating-promises": true
}
}
Run TSLint:
tslint --project tsconfig.json
If there are floating promises in your code, you should see the following error:
ERROR: F:/Samples/index.ts[12, 5]: Promises must be handled appropriately
TypeScript already does this
// users is a Promise<T>
const users = getUsers(); // <<< missing await
// users.length is not a property of users... then and catch are
console.log(users.length);
You can find situations where you won't be told about your mistake - where the types are compatible, for example I missed an await here:
function delay(ms: number) {
return new Promise<number>(function(resolve) {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(5);
}, ms);
});
}
async function asyncAwait() {
let x = await delay(1000);
console.log(x);
let y = delay(1000);
console.log(y);
return 'Done';
}
asyncAwait().then((result) => console.log(result));
Because console.log doesn't cause any type incompatibility between my numbers and my promises, the compiler can't tell I have made a mistake.
The only solution here would be a type annotation... but if you're gonna forget an await, you're just as likely to forget a type annotation.
let y: number = delay(1000);
tslint is deprecated but typescript-eslint has a rule for this: no-floating-promises
This rule forbids usage of Promise-like values in statements without handling their errors appropriately ... Valid ways of handling a Promise-valued statement include awaiting, returning, and either calling .then() with two arguments or .catch() with one argument.
To use it, you'll need to set up typescript-eslint:
Install dependencies
npm install --save-dev eslint #typescript-eslint/parser #typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin
Modify your .eslintrc file
These are the minimum required settings; see the documentation for more options (https://typescript-eslint.io/docs/linting/linting):
{
"parser": "#typescript-eslint/parser",
"parserOptions": { "project": "./tsconfig.json" },
"plugins": ["#typescript-eslint"],
"rules": {
"#typescript-eslint/no-floating-promises": ["error"]
}
}
If there are places where you want to call an async function without using await, you can either:
Use the void operator as mentioned in the documentation for the rule, e.g.
void someAsyncFunction();
Or just change error to warn in the .eslintrc configuration above
Next time you run eslint you should see the rule applied:
$ npm run lint
...
./src/database/database.ts
219:7 warning Promises must be awaited, end with a call to .catch, end with a call to .then with a rejection handler or be explicitly marked as ignored with the `void` operator #typescript-eslint/no-floating-promises
Since you mentioned VS Code specifically, this also integrates great with the ESLint plugin:
I'm writing tests for my npm module.
These tests require to install multiple versions of an npm module in order to check if the module will validate them as compatible or incompatible.
Somehow all uncache libraries or function I found on stackoverflow or the npm database are not working..
I install/uninstall npm modules by using my helper functions:
function _run_cmd(cmd, args) {
return new Promise((res, rej) => {
const child = spawn(cmd, args)
let resp = ''
child.stdout.on('data', function (buffer) {
resp += buffer.toString()
})
child.stdout.on('end', function() {
res(resp)
})
child.stdout.on('error', (err) => rej(err))
})
}
global.helper = {
npm: {
install: function (module) {
return _run_cmd('npm', ['install', module])
},
uninstall: function (module) {
decacheModule(module)
return _run_cmd('npm', ['uninstall', module])
}
}
}
This is my current decache function which should clear all modules caches (I tried others, including npm modules none of them worked)
function decacheModules() {
Object.keys(require.cache).forEach(function(key) {
delete require.cache[key]
})
}
I am installing multiple versions of the less module (https://www.npmjs.com/package/less)
In my first test I am installing a deprecated version which does not have a render-function.
In some other test I am installing an up-to-date version which has the render-function. Somehow if I test for that function that test does fail.
If I skip the first test the other test succeeds. (render-function exists).
This makes me believe that the deletion of require.cache has no impact...
I am using node v4.2.4.
If there is a reference to the old module:
var less = require('less');
Clear module cache will not lead that reference cleared and reload the module.
For that to work, at least you don't store module to variable, use the "require('less')" in place everywhere.