[@rollup/plugin-node-resolve] Extend resolveOnly property to allow for denylists / miscellaneous use cases.

[TotalTechGeek]

• Rollup Plugin Name: node-resolve
• Rollup Plugin Version: 13.1.3

Feature Use Case

Currently, it appears that the resolveOnly property allows you to pass in an array of strings or regular expressions to validate if a plugin should be bundled in.

I had a use case where I wanted to bundle in everything except for certain dependencies. (node-rdkafka, sqlite3).

I would like to extend the resolveOnly property to allow developers more control.

This feature may already exist under another property, and if so, I apologize for the unnecessary recommendation.

Feature Proposal

While it is semi-possible to work around this by creating a complex regular expression to attempt to match everything except the given string, there are a few ways to introduce this.

Suggestion 1
I believe the best way to introduce this is to also allow resolveOnly to be a (plugin: string) => boolean function, thus allowing a developer to write something like:

function forbid (...plugins) {
    const set = new Set(plugins)
    return plugin => !set.has(plugins)
}

nodeResolve({
    resolveOnly: forbid('sqlite3', 'node-rdkafka')
})

By allowing the user to provide their own function, it gives them complete control to customize however they see fit.

Suggestion 2
While I believe suggestion 1 should be simple enough to implement, if you wanted to change just literally 1 type / 1 line of code, all you'd need to do is change out RegExp for { test: (plugin: string) => boolean }. I do not like this as much :)

function forbid (...plugins) {
    const set = new Set(plugins)
    return [{ test: plugin => !set.has(plugins) }]
}

nodeResolve({
    resolveOnly: forbid('sqlite3', 'node-rdkafka')
})

My current workaround

In order to work around this, I ended up doing the following:

function forbid (...plugins) {
    const regex = new RegExp('');
    const set = new Set(plugins)
    regex.test = (pattern) => !set.has(pattern)
    return [regex]
}

While this works for now, I know it's a hack and could break at any minute :P

If someone likes the idea, I'm 100% willing to file the MR!

[shellscape]

tagging a few folks that might have some input @guybedford @tjenkinson @lukastaegert

[tjenkinson]

Supporting a function too that returns a boolean sounds good to me

[TotalTechGeek]

Closing the issue as the pull request has been merged :)