fix(react): Fix jsx runtime rewrite

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.

[lforst]

I screwed up the matching in the last PR: #12740

[alexandersorokin]

It's look like this MR will break compatibility with react@18. js extension is only need if there are no an exports field in package.json or that field contains js extension.

But react@18 does have exports field without js extension. See: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=code

Only react@17 doesn't have exports field.

[lforst]

Right, so we're a bit deadlocked. If we don't have the .js extension we break react 17, if we add the .js extension we break 18. 🤔

[alexandersorokin]

I am sure that Sentry should support react@18 and react@19 instead of react@17 because it allows users to upgrade to the newest version of react. So the imports should remain extension-less.

Users of react@17 can use an workaround in their bundler config (configuring an alias).

[lforst]

@alexandersorokin yup I am generally with you. I am just wondering whether there is a way we can make it work for everybody. (maybe we'll just switch back to React.createElement and live with the warning).

[alexandersorokin]

react@19 will drop support of old jsx transform for tsx files (it uses React.createElement internally). But I don't know does it mean that React.createElement should not be used directly anymore.

Nevertheless, there are enough libraries with the same issue. They are not going to make it works for everyone. So esm consumers will likely have to configure their bundler to work with both react/jsx-runtime and react/jsx-runtime.js even if @sentry/react will incorporate a fix.