JS files relocation inside the web/js directory not BC in 2.3.x

[rbayet]

Summary

The issue #16302 has been fixed both in 2.2.x and 2.3.x lines but only the fix in 2.2.x is BC compatible by providing and "old_path : new_path" mapping in the requirejs-config.js.

Examples

For instance for the 2.2.x line for app/code/Magento/Authorizenet/view/frontend/requirejs-config.js
the combination of 8653ba1 and e0b09fd leads to the following changes :
From

var config = {
    map: {
        '*': {
            transparent: 'Magento_Payment/transparent'
        }
    }
};

To

var config = {
    map: {
        '*': {
            transparent: 'Magento_Payment/js/transparent',
            'Magento_Payment/transparent': 'Magento_Payment/js/transparent'
        }
    }
};

(See https://github.com/magento/magento2/blob/2.2-develop/app/code/Magento/Authorizenet/view/frontend/requirejs-config.js)

This means any reference to 'Magento_Payment/transparent' in a third party extension's JS component define() dependency will point correctly to 'Magento_Payment/js/transparent'.

On the other hand, in the 2.3.x line, the changes are simply (see 0ce439b)
From

var config = {
    map: {
        '*': {
            transparent: 'Magento_Payment/transparent'
        }
    }
};

To

var config = {
    map: {
        '*': {
            transparent: 'Magento_Payment/js/transparent'
        }
    }
};

(See https://github.com/magento/magento2/blob/2.3-develop/app/code/Magento/Authorizenet/view/frontend/requirejs-config.js)

This time, any third party extension's JS component define() dependency to 'Magento_Payment/transparent' will fail and break the extension.

Proposed solution

As the BC solution found for the 2.2.x line is not that intrusive, it could also be adopted for the 2.3.x line, eliminating (in some conditions) the need to address those JS files relocation for third party extension authors.

Regards,
Richard.

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @rbayet. Thank you for your report.
To help us process this issue please make sure that you provided the following information:

• Summary of the issue
• Information on your environment
• Steps to reproduce
• Expected and actual results

Please make sure that the issue is reproducible on the vanilla Magento instance following Steps to reproduce. To deploy vanilla Magento instance on our environment, please, add a comment to the issue:

@magento-engcom-team give me $VERSION instance

where $VERSION is version tags (starting from 2.2.0+) or develop branches (for example: 2.3-develop).
For more details, please, review the Magento Contributor Assistant documentation.

@rbayet do you confirm that you was able to reproduce the issue on vanilla Magento instance following steps to reproduce?

• yes
• no

[rbayet]

Sorry, can't edit the previous comment to tick the checkboxes when appropriate.

The issue is purely related on BC for third party extensions (modules, themes), so it cannot be reproduced on a vanilla Magento instance alone.

I could indicate steps to reproduce, but it will require the installation of a third party extension.

[romainruaud]

Hello @magento-engcom-team

Just to be clear, this one is a "Developer experience issue", making us unable to provide proper compatibility with Magento 2.2 AND 2.3 on our Elasticsuite extension.

@rbayet already explained well what we are facing here, and I'm sure we are not alone to build JS components based on the JS components that were affected by this decision to move them.

On our specific case, it's due to the 'Magento_Search/form-mini' that has been moved, but since many other files are concerned, I'm wondering why you decided to not keep the BC version in 2.3 (you introduced it and used it for 2.2.x versions).

Question is : did you squeeze it on purpose (no BC for major version), or is it a mistake ?

We need to know it in order to design our own compatibility (and BC) map for the next version of our extension which is meant to support Magento 2.3.

Regards

[romainruaud]

And btw, @rbayet and me would be glad to submit a PR to fix this one if you ask us to.

Regards

[romainruaud]

Just to be transparent : the comment I removed was the auto response when assigned. I let you manage the lifecycle/assignment of this issue by yourself.

Regards

[magento-engcom-team]

@romainruaud Thank you for verifying the issue.

Unfortunately, not enough information was provided to created internal ticket. Please consider adding the following:

• Add "Component: " label(s) to this ticket based on verification result. If uncertain, you may follow the best guess
• Add "Reproduced on " label(s) to this ticket based on verification result

Once all required information is added, please add label "Issue: Confirmed" again.
Thanks!

[magento-engcom-team]

@romainruaud Thank you for verifying the issue. Based on the provided information internal tickets MAGETWO-96618 were created

[DrewML]

Thanks for the report @rbayet! I have to assume the missing BC path in 2.3.0 was a mistake. Would be happy to accept a PR from you or @romainruaud with the fix.

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @rbayet. Thank you for your report.
The issue has been fixed in #19583 by @rbayet in 2.3-develop branch
Related commit(s):

• f38f09f879a7495772e5a3b2fc2445731ae2cb5b

The fix will be available with the upcoming 2.3.1 release.