Unable to add custom options for sass compilation

When trying to use foundation I ran in to problem where I have to add custom include paths. Adding them as options is not working as only resolve_url_loader is a valid option.

[weaverryan]

To me, it made more sense to separate encore options from pass-through options used for the loaders.

Hmm @DaRamirezSoto, then what about an option that’s very similar to your option III:

.enableSassLoader(function(options) {
    // add or set custom options
    options.includePaths: ["absolute/path/a", "absolute/path/b"];
}, { resolve_url_loader: false });

I’ve just reversed the first and second argument for consistency with other loaders, where we would consistently have an options callback as the first argument (and sometimes we would have a second argument for Encore-specific stuff when needed - so far, this is only for the sass-loader).

With childlike solutions that use everything in callbacks without a good reason to do so

Please try to keep things positive and respectful 😃. I do appreciate your help and thoughts, but I don’t want anyone in the Symfony community (myself included) to feel insulted for their ideas.

@davidmpaz About your example with the happyPackConfig - I haven’t looked into it too far, but HappyPack would likely have its own configuration/enabling method, since it’s not really specific to any one loader (e.g. enableHappyPack(function(config) {});.

[d4r5c0d3]

@weaverryan I am really confused now. I thought encore where going to make things easier and now we are just proxying Webpack with callbacks that have more switches and values you can set. I have no idea how you can call this easier.

There is going to be some confusing in regards to the file name used. People seeing webpack.config.js but having to deal with some weird proxy API that has bad naming convention never seen before in Nodejs landscape. With childlike solutions that use everything in callbacks without a good reason to do so. It is not like we using promises at which point the heavy use of callbacks would make sense.

The solution change the file name to encore.config.js?

I understand that there is a need for a webpack.config.js generator that helps people who don’t spend much time dealing with NodeJS (or don’t want), but that is not what this is becoming. I already pointed this out and you validated but insisted that reinventing the wheel is what we were going for.