[v5.0.0] Fails jest tests

I am using url-join on a frontend project. I believe the browser have trouble understanding the export statement in lib. When I revert back to v4.1.0 all works well.

This was the error I was seeing in my jest tests.

 FAIL  tests/unit/App.spec.js
  ● Test suite failed to run

    Jest encountered an unexpected token

    This usually means that you are trying to import a file which Jest cannot parse, e.g. it's not plain JavaScript.

    By default, if Jest sees a Babel config, it will use that to transform your files, ignoring "node_modules".

    Here's what you can do:
     • To have some of your "node_modules" files transformed, you can specify a custom "transformIgnorePatterns" in your config.
     • If you need a custom transformation specify a "transform" option in your config.
     • If you simply want to mock your non-JS modules (e.g. binary assets) you can stub them out with the "moduleNameMapper" config option.

    You'll find more details and examples of these config options in the docs:
    https://jestjs.io/docs/en/configuration.html

    Details:

    /node_modules/url-join/lib/url-join.js:60
    export default function urlJoin() {
    ^^^^^^

    SyntaxError: Unexpected token 'export'

    > 1 | import urlJoin from 'url-join';
        | ^

      at ScriptTransformer._transformAndBuildScript (node_modules/jest-runtime/node_modules/@jest/transform/build/ScriptTransformer.js:537:17)
      at Object.<anonymous> (src/services/client.js:1:1)

Test Suites: 1 failed, 2 passed, 3 total
Tests:       25 passed, 25 total
Snapshots:   0 total
Time:        4.948s
Ran all test suites.                          

[david0178418]

@dennismphil For you and others running into issues on this front, if you take a look at the code, the module is actually quite small and easily lifted out and copied into your project.

If you look at the PR that changed the module format, there was a link to this thread which has since been “locked”. Copying this out for the time being until such time that your project might be able to be adapted to work with native node esm modules will get you unblocked while dodging the crossfire in what has become an oddly ideological holy war.

[tony]

@jonkoops This new distribution method does make certain things more difficult.

As an example I use gatsby, I get stung by this here: https://github.com/gatsbyjs/gatsby/issues/23705. This is tricky.

Maybe I’m the only one, but maybe it could be more portable to (some?) users if the package added a distribution for commonjs.

🤷 It’s pretty easy to include an extra build output, to include esm, commonjs, etc. (rollup, webpack, tsc). It’s your call, though