"Other" modules as categorized as CJS by default

[TheAlexLichter]

Describe the bug

As native bindings are more and more popular, they show up in module graphs. But in https://node-modules.dev/ they are listed as CJS while not being CJS.

I wonder if it should get another label (like "binary") so it is less confusing, or even count as ESM by default

Reproduction

https://node-modules.dev/#install=@oxc-parser/binding-linux-x64-gnu

System Info

not needed

Used Package Manager

pnpm

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guide.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Check that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A, please open a GitHub Discussion instead.
• The provided reproduction is a minimal reproducible of the bug.

Contributions

• I am willing to submit a PR to fix this issue
• I am willing to submit a PR with failing tests (actually just go ahead and do it, thanks!)

[outslept]

I don't think we need a separate type for this. .node files can technically work in both CJS and ESM.

There's an important caveat, ESM support for .node files requires the --experimental-addon-modules flag.

https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html#:~:text=Addons%20are%20not%20currently%20supported

"Addons are not currently supported with ES module imports. They can instead be loaded with module.createRequire() or process.dlopen."

With the experimental flag enabled, .node files get the "addon" format and work in ESM.

So technically:

• Without flag: CJS only (ESM needs workarounds like createRequire())
• With --experimental-addon-modules: Should be dual (?)

.node files are not really a separate module type - they're a loading mechanism for native code that works on top of existing module systems. f we base classification purely on package.json information (which is what we currently do afaik), then this classification is technically correct according to the algo - packages without "type": "module" are CJS packages, even when their main entry is a .node file.

I'm not sure what's the right approach here - we don't parse anything beyond package.json as far as I remember, so the information is sort of limited to make a proper decision.

Links:

1. https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/lib/internal/modules/cjs/loader.js#L1873-L1882
2. https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/lib/internal/modules/esm/load.js#L83-L85
3. https://nodejs.org/api/addons.html

[antfu]

Yeah, I would be happy to have the Other category and not be counted as either CJS/ESM. But another way I wonder if oxc would just add type: module in the package.json?

[userquin]

Yeah, I would be happy to have the Other category and not be counted as either CJS/ESM. But another way I wonder if oxc would just add type: module in the package.json?

😆

https://npmx.dev/package/@oxc-parser/binding-linux-x64-gnu