Skip to content

Consider preventing the use of Node.js built-in modules and globals by default #127

Open

Description

@Mrtenz

Most modules we develop need to be browser-compatible. The use of Node.js built-in modules means that some kind of polyfill is required for those modules. Usually this means using polyfills like crypto-browserify (hasn't been updated in years, and the bundle is quite large), buffer, etc., while there are often better alternatives available that have a much smaller bundle size (e.g., the noble and scure libraries), which offer compatibility with both Node.js and browsers by default.

Working with Uint8Array and bigint instead of Buffer and BN.js is quite easy now, since we have a lot of util functions in @metamask/utils. Most other Buffer-specific functions, like writeUint...() can be replaced with a DataView (available on browsers and Node.js). See MetaMask/key-tree#83 for example.

For that reason I propose we add some ESLint rules that prevent the use of built-in Node.js modules (mainly crypto), and Node.js-specific globals (mainly Buffer).

There are some valid use-cases for using Node.js built-in modules (like Node.js-only modules interacting with the file system), but projects needing it can simply remove or disable those rules.

Activity

  1. Gudahtt commented on Oct 13, 2022

    @Gudahtt
    Member

    Our base ESLint config should already prevent using Node.js or browser-specific APIs (here).

    They are allowed for JavaScript files because this template is meant for TypeScript libraries, and what few JavaScript modules we have tend to be build-related, rather than part of the library.

    Maybe I'm mistaken though; where have you seen that Node.js APis are allowed where they shouldn't be?

  2. Mrtenz commented on Oct 13, 2022

    @Mrtenz
    MemberAuthor

    Those rules don't seem to be applied to the module template. As a test I added this file, which does not cause any errors upon running yarn lint.

  3. mcmire commented on Nov 2, 2023

    @mcmire
    Contributor

    Revisiting this. Does this issue still exist?

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

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions