I noticed that the Fh definition is moved to taoensso.encore.js when I use remove-watch, but this file is not required by clojure.string of course

Why not pretty print it ?

Can’t remember the exact settings but configure it to not shorten the names, use the originals to get better insight

@U922FGW59 compile with npx shadow-cljs release <your-build> --pseudo-names

to see what this actually is

stuff moving around files is expected, thats what the closure compiler does

OK, will try that, thanks. Was confused that things are moved to modules with the wrong dependency relationship, as encore depends on clojure.string and not vice versa

always verify. there is no guarantee that Fh of one build is Fh in another build

if a function is only used once somewhere the closure compiler will either inline it entirely or move it to the module it was used in

you might be chasing down the wrong problems. advanced can be very misleading that way 😛

It might, but the Fh definition is exactly the same. And anyway, I do get the problem that clojure.string uses this but does not have it

uses what?

The function Fh is this:

$CLJS.$JSCompiler_unstubMethod$$ = function($JSCompiler_unstubMethod_id$$, $JSCompiler_unstubMethod_body$$) {
  return $CLJS.$JSCompiler_stubMap$$[$JSCompiler_unstubMethod_id$$] = $JSCompiler_unstubMethod_body$$;
};

ah. yeah thats a nasty one

What is it? 🙂

https://clojure.atlassian.net/browse/CLJS-3207

set :compiler-options {:cross-chunk-method-motion false} in your build config

haven't seen that problem in a long time though. not sure how clojure.string would be involved either

could totally be something else but the stub thing looks familiar

Ah, I had that in a different project once, I remember…

Do you know what unstubMethod does?

moves methods cross chunks 😛

In my case probably totally useless, as I later use webpack to glue it all together

well, it means that if you have a type/class, with methods on it

class Thing { foo() { ... } } or so

Yeah, I do use shadow.modern/defclass

and foo is only used on one module but Thing in multiple. it may move the definition of foo elsewhere

not specific to defclass

any deftype defrecord and or JS type really, even reify.

OK

if you run webpack anyways you should probably consider using :target :esm with :js-provider :import

it addresses some of the weirdness in :npm-module

Not sure if I can. You might not remember, but you were helping me back in the day with my setup to build VS-Code Web Extensions

ah right. it didn't like modules right?

Where I need a special web-worker build that uses require and module exports

Yep, needs all in one file

Unfortunately I cannot keep the differences between ESM/whatever other JS module version in my head 🙂

Ok dam if there was an award for rapid esoteric knowledge and response this would be it

I’d probably have to tell my boss this is a research project and I’ll see you in a few months

Yes, thanks Thomas, your help is highly appreciated!

Fun fact: I actually worked around not needing remove-watch in the end and came up with a better design anyway

:cross-chunk-method-motion false seems to indeed solve this! 🎉

Thanks again!