WebpackPlugin gives packagerConfig.ignore error when resolveForgeConfig is called twice

When using forge.config.js, because resolveForgeConfig can be called by both “Checking your system” and “Preparing to Package Application for arch: x64” will result in “You have set packagerConfig.ignore, the Electron Forge webpack plugin normally sets this automatically.” even though packagerConfig.ignore is actually the WebPackPlugins own function that it sets automatically.

When using package.json for config is does not repro

Preflight Checklist

• I have read the contribution documentation for this project.
• I agree to follow the code of conduct that this project follows, as appropriate.
• I have searched the issue tracker for a bug that matches the one I want to file, without success.

Issue Details

• Electron Forge Version:
  • 6.0.0-beta.53
• Electron Version: 10.1.2
• Operating System: Windows 10
• Last Known Working Electron Forge version:: ?

Expected Behavior

No custom package ignore is set, should not get error “You have set packagerConfig.ignore”

Actual Behavior

error: You have set packagerConfig.ignore, the Electron Forge webpack plugin normally sets this automatically.

Your packaged app may be larger than expected if you dont ignore everything other than the ‘.webpack’ folder

To Reproduce

Additional Information

Log:

WARNING: DEBUG environment variable detected. Progress indicators will be sent over electron-forge:lifecycle electron-forge:async-ora Process Started: Checking your system +0ms electron-forge:check-system checking system, create ~/.skip-forge-system-check to stop doing this +0ms electron-forge:async-ora Process Succeeded: Checking your system – after 545ms +547ms WARNING: DEBUG environment variable detected. Progress indicators will be sent over electron-forge:lifecycle electron-forge:async-ora Process Started: Resolving Forge Config +0ms electron-forge:project-resolver searching for project in: C:\git\powerlogsminer +0ms electron-forge:project-resolver electron-forge compatible package.json found in C:\git\powerlogsminer\package.json +2ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/plugin-webpack’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\plugin-webpack’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\plugin-webpack’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +0ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/plugin-webpack +2ms electron-forge:plugin:webpack hooking process events +0ms Trace: resolveForgeConfig at hook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\plugin-webpack\src\WebpackPlugin.ts:186:7) at PluginInterface.triggerMutatingHook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\plugin-interface.ts:66:24) at runMutatingHook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\hook.ts:34:38) at _default (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\forge-config.ts:149:23) electron-forge:async-ora Process Succeeded: Resolving Forge Config – after 725ms +728ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/maker-squirrel’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\maker-squirrel’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\maker-squirrel’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +701ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/maker-squirrel +1ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/maker-zip’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\maker-zip’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\maker-zip’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +78ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/maker-zip +1ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/maker-deb’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\maker-deb’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\maker-deb’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +2ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/maker-deb +20ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/maker-rpm’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\maker-rpm’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\maker-rpm’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +4ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/maker-rpm +21ms electron-forge:async-ora Process Started: Preparing to Package Application for arch: x64 +130ms electron-forge:project-resolver searching for project in: C:\git\powerlogsminer +856ms electron-forge:project-resolver electron-forge compatible package.json found in C:\git\powerlogsminer\package.json +7ms electron-forge:require-search searching [ ‘@electron-forge/plugin-webpack’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\@electron-forge\plugin-webpack’, ‘C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules\@electron-forge\plugin-webpack’ ] relative to C:\git\powerlogsminer +38ms electron-forge:require-search testing @electron-forge/plugin-webpack +1ms electron-forge:plugin:webpack hooking process events +196ms Trace: resolveForgeConfig at hook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\plugin-webpack\src\WebpackPlugin.ts:186:7) at PluginInterface.triggerMutatingHook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\plugin-interface.ts:66:24) at runMutatingHook (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\hook.ts:34:38) at _default (C:\git\powerlogsminer\node_modules@electron-forge\core\src\util\forge-config.ts:149:23) You have set packagerConfig.ignore, the Electron Forge webpack plugin normally sets this automatically.

Your packaged app may be larger than expected if you dont ignore everything other than the ‘.webpack’ folder electron-forge:async-ora Process Started: Compiling Main Process Code +69ms electron-forge:plugin:webpack:webpackconfig Config mode: production +0ms electron-forge:async-ora Process Succeeded: Compiling Main Process Code – after 5.6s +6s electron-forge:async-ora Process Started: Compiling Renderer Template +1ms

[davidwinter]

I’m witnessing this behaviour too. I’m on macOS, with beta 54.

I just switched from using the package.json config which did not have this behaviour, to a separate JS config file and now am seeing this output.

[davidwinter]

Would appreciate any input or feedback on the proposed fix in #2125, please.