[vite_throwaway]

I have a small React project using vite 7 and have the following in my config so that vite interprets ".js" files as JSX:

    // See https://github.com/vitejs/vite/discussions/14652
    esbuild: {
      loader: "jsx",
      include: /.*\.jsx?$/,
      exclude: [],
    },
    optimizeDeps: {
      esbuildOptions: {
        loader: {
          ".js": "jsx",
        },
      },
    },

Note the comment at the top. I had no idea how to come up with this config by checking the documentation pages of vite and its various related tools. Luckily I found the GitHub issue and someone else had come up with the right incantation.

Now this new vite uses new tools, and their documentation is still lacking. I spent half an hour trying to figure out how vite (and related tools that I had to navigate and try to piece a coherent view of: esbuild, oxc, rolldown, etc.) might be convinced, but gave up and stayed with vite 7.

Someone could respond with a working solution and it would help, sure, but these tools sure as hell have documentation issues.

[spiros]

The solution here is working for me: https://github.com/vitejs/vite/discussions/21505

Though sometimes oxc complains about JSX in JS when running vite, but it still works fine.

[vite_throwaway]

Thanks, I will consider this workaround later on.

Another instance is the use of rollupOptions.output.manualChunks that now has to be rewritten, maybe that would be less frustrating to fathom.

[iainmerrick]

Sorry if this comes across as overly facetious — I’m sure you have a reason for doing it that way! — but would it not be easier just to bow to convention and rename your .js files to .jsx?

[vite_throwaway]

Probably. It's just that I've always used .js for my projects (decades). Such a rename would likely result in configuration changes to the other tools I use, but indeed they are better documented. When faced with a multiplicity of conventions I pick one and stick to it; the tools are flexible enough to work with it I'm sure, the real issue is of discoverability.

[elondaits]

But it’s not just convention… JSX files are not valid JS files. Also, as a programmer, I would be annoyed to open a JS file and find out it’s actually something else.

[ezfe]

I'm curious why you use `.js` files instead of `.jsx`? In my experience, using `jsx` files makes everything work better