vitejs/vite

Recorded claims

No decisions have been organised from this repository’s history yet — these are individual claims lema extracted, each linked to the discussion it came from.

• Updating Node.js to the latest version did not resolve the `TypeError: crypto.hash is not a function` error for some users.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-07-19 ↗
• Deleting `package-lock.json` and `node_modules` and reinstalling dependencies did not resolve the `TypeError: crypto.hash is not a function` error.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-08-16 ↗
• Updating Node.js to an accepted version did not resolve the `TypeError: crypto.hash is not a function` error.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-08-16 ↗
• Installing Vite globally using `npm install -g vite` was attempted as an approach.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-06-02 ↗
• Running `npm run build` is not practical for updating static JSON files because the code is not changing and it takes too long.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-04-03 ↗
• Adding a `buildApp.targets` config was rejected because it would not allow multiple plugins to build the same environment and would require extra coordination between framework and platform plugins.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-04-13 ↗
• A declarative build configs approach was rejected because it felt too different from the current environments API design and defining build configuration objects would be very involved.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-04-13 ↗
• Introducing a breaking change for the `buildApp` API in Vite 7 was rejected, opting instead to keep `config.builder.buildApp` working alongside the new hook to avoid a breaking change at this point.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-04-13 ↗
• Adding pre and post hooks around the existing `buildApp` config was rejected because it would add unnecessary complexity without noticeable gain.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-04-13 ↗
• Declarative build configs were rejected because they felt too different from the current environments API design and defining build configuration objects would be too involved.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• Pre and Post hooks were rejected because they would add unnecessary complexity without noticeable gain compared to the proposed solution.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• Adding a `buildApp.targets` configuration option was rejected because it would not allow multiple plugins to build the same environment and would require extra coordination.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• A `buildEnvironment` middleware hook was rejected because it might require a complex mental model and implementation, making the proposed solution simpler to use and implement.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• Adding a `buildApp.targets` configuration option was rejected because it would not allow multiple plugins to build the same environment and would require extra coordination.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• A `buildEnvironment` middleware hook was rejected because it might require a complex mental model and implementation, making the proposed solution simpler to use and implement.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• Adding pre and post hooks around the existing `buildApp` config was rejected because it would add unnecessary complexity without noticeable gain.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-25 ↗
• Integrating the Automatic Workspace folders feature directly into Vite is preferred to remain in userland until it becomes an agreed-upon standard.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-11 ↗
• Storing the UUID in `node_modules/.vite` is not suitable because that directory is regularly deleted by users or during `vite dev --force`.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-11 ↗
• Integrating Chrome DevTools `devtools.json` handling directly into Vite is not preferred if it requires additional customization options that Vite cannot infer.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-11 ↗
• Vite should not add browser-specific support.mined candidatediscussion · 2025-03-11 ↗