Webpack Config is stripping out Crypto

[jmc265]

1. OS?
   Mac OSX El Capitan
2. Versions.
   angular-cli: local (v1.0.0-beta.10, branch: webpack)
   node: 4.4.7
   os: darwin x64
3. Repro steps.
   I've pulled down the Angular-cli project and am building it locally, so I am using the new webpack version.
   The project that I am building uses Crypto libraries (via a dependency of a dependency ...).
   When I was running ng build I was seeing the dependency built like this:

 /* WEBPACK VAR INJECTION */(function(Buffer) {'use strict';

 var crypto = __webpack_require__(147);
 var BufferUtil = __webpack_require__(21);
 var $ = __webpack_require__(15);

 var Hash = module.exports;

 Hash.sha1 = function(buf) {
 $.checkArgument(BufferUtil.isBuffer(buf));
 return crypto.createHash('sha1').update(buf).digest();
 };
 ...

And then when I looked at module 147 (I.E. the crypto module) I was seeing nothing there:

/***/ },
/* 147 */
/***/ function(module, exports, __webpack_require__) {

/***/ },

After a while of searching I took a look in the Angular-CLI code and saw that part of the webpack config (addon/ng2/models/webpack-build-common.ts) was this:

node: {
 global: 'window',
 crypto: 'empty',
 module: false,
 clearImmediate: false,
 setImmediate: false
 }

When I remove crypto: 'empty' everything builds correctly with the crypto module getting pulled in.

So my question is, why have you specified that crypto should be empty?
Is there any way to fix this more permanently?

[jmc265]

@TheLarkInn: Could you explain the crypto: 'empty' option added here:

angular-cli/addon/ng2/models/webpack-build-common.ts

Line 86 in cf04a93

crypto: 'empty',

[TheLarkInn]

Most projects by default aren't using crypto so removing that buildin results in smaller bundles. We'll implement a way to control this in the future.

[jmc265]

I've had to fork the Angular CLI just to get my project to build properly. I don't think a build tool should be opinionated in this way. I spent over a day debugging to figure this out. Can you add the option in for this as soon as possible, I want to get off of my fork otherwise I am going to miss updates.

[filipesilva]

Unless I'm missing something here, it's kinda relevant to notice that we're building for the browser environment. Browser does not have crypto.

That we're using webpack to build the app, and that webpack is a node app is completely incidental: that could change to something else (SystemJS for instance) and your app would break as well.

I understand that you can't change your dependency of a dependency, but it doesn't sound like it would work in a non-node environment anyway. In that sense, I do not think we should include crypto.

[jmc265]

That makes no sense, you are actively preventing anyone from building a Web app with crypto in it. Browsers do have crypto support: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/crypto

@TheLarkInn, @filipesilva: If you won't re-open this issue to fix it, please at least suggest a workaround for people that want to use Cryptography in Angular.

(And BTW, this same project did build with the SystemJS version of Angular CLI)

[jmc265]

@TheLarkInn, @filipesilva: Are you able to reply to the above?

[TheLarkInn]

@jmc265 so the node buildins are something that can vary per implementation of your app, and I see the merit of including them, however we need a clear and concise design around this proposal. If we expose these configuration properties, we need to do it in a way that will make sense to users, etc. What does this do? How do I use it? Why do I need it? What are the challenges etc.

Design Process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p_L-4RKY5PRMs9qdunpN56U66PTJSijfU2yb6V6KMuI/view

Linked above is our design process for creating a proposal for new features. I would certainly recommend you propose one for this feature for discussion.

[jmc265]

@TheLarkInn I am really not understanding what you are asking for.
From my perspective, as a user of your build tool, all I am seeing is that I cannot build an app with cryptography in it, because of a limitation you specifically put in which I cannot configure nor override. You can see where I am coming from, can't you? It is so strange to me that a build tool has that limitation in, with the only reason being 'most projects don't use cryptography'. Well sure... But most projects don't use math.random, that doesn't mean you should forbid use of it in your build tool.

[jmc265]

@TheLarkInn, @filipesilva: So you aren't going to fix this or provide any workaround? You are saying people who want to use crypto in their apps can't use Angular CLI...

[kylecordes]

@jmc265 I think the most important part of the conversation above was "we'll implement a way to control this in the future.". Right now the CLI team is working real hard on supporting the most mainstream use cases. For example, CLI doesn't even have the ability to use the Angular template precompiler yet, or really any ability at all to add plug-ins or special configurations or anything else that doesn't match the default set up. I suggest perhaps bringing this issue back up some months from now, after that and numerous other mainstream cases are working well and in wide use. It'll probably be easier to get attention on corner cases at that time. You are correct above to say that, for the moment if you need a webpack or other setting beyond what CLI can do today, a good backup plan is to switch over to a (much more complex) "seed" project which drops the entire webpack configuration right in your project where you can edit it easily.

[jmc265]

@kylecordes: Thank you, that make sense.
As this is an accepted issue which has not yet been fixed, could we move this ticket back into Open status so that it can be tracked?

[kylecordes]

@jmc265 I'm just a drive-by, community, trying-to-be-helpful person using these technologies heavily, teaching some of them, reading lots of stuff, and sometimes commenting with explanations to help ease the workload of the team actually building this thing (so they can work more on building it). As for reopening issues... one of them would need to decide and comment on that.

[filipesilva]

I stand corrected: the browser environment does have crypto. Thus it makes sense to not bar it on a config level. I'll reopen this issue but don't have a timeline (nor strategy) for solving it.

Suggestions are welcome, but bear in mind we do not want to use node's crypto but instead use the browser one since it's part of the spec.

@jmc265 I'm also going to have to ask you to refrain from double posting though. I understand this issue is important for you but I get a load of notifications for this project, and more notifications do not make me get to issues faster. In fact, since I go over them in Google Inbox from oldest to newest, each time you double post the whole thread just gets moved to the top and thus it'll take longer to get seen.