Repository navigation
refactor(server): migrate ip_access_control to ESM - #4316
Merged
Merged
Conversation
khassel
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2026
khassel
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2026
Follow-up to #4316. I've converted `server.js` and `vendor.js` to ESM. I did them together because the server is the only place on the Node side that uses `vendor`. The browser loader just imports the renamed file. For the e2e tests I added a small `global-setup.mjs` wrapper, so ESM specs can import the helpers without touching the existing ones. `vendor_spec.js` is the first spec using it. The old specs work as before. Importing `global-setup.js` directly doesn't work, because then Vitest would run the app inside its own module loader.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #4314.
I've converted
ip_access_controlto ESM. It's a small, self-contained file that is only used by the server, so it's a good next candidate.I added the new file to the same ESLint rules as
app.mjsfor now. Otherwise the stricter default rules for.mjsfiles would force a lot of style changes, and the diff would become much bigger than the actual change. Once the ESM migration is done, it would make sense to revisit the ESLint rules for all of these files together.