* add prettier-plugin-tailwindcss
This will use the prettier plugin in our tests as well, yay consistency!
* ensure that both `group` and `peer` can't be used in `@apply`
This was only configured for `group`
* expose `sortClassList` on the context
This function will be used by the `prettier-plugin-tailwindcss` plugin,
this way the sorting happens within Tailwind CSS itself adn the
`prettier-plugin-tailwindcss` plugin doesn't have to use internal /
private APIs.
The signature looks like this:
```ts
function sortClassList(classes: string[]): string[]
```
E.g.:
```js
let sortedClasses = context.sortClassList(['p-1', 'm-1', 'container'])
```
* update changelog
* add sort test for utilities with the important modifier e.g.: `!p-4`
* Add failing tests for negative utility detection
We're not generating them properly in all cases, when using at-apply we sometimes crash, and safelisting doesn't currently work as expected.
* Refactor
* Generate utilities for negatives before and after the prefix
* Properly detect negative utilities with prefixes in the safelist
* Refactor test a bit
* Add class list tests
* Update changelog
* quick fix for incorrect arbitrary properties
Turns out that using links like [https://example.com] causes arbitrary
properties to generate invalid css.
This is a very dirty quick fix for this specific case, so we have to fix
this properly!
* update changelog
* ensure that we compile the postcss nesting plugin
* re-add optional chaining
This will allow us to be 100% sure that we can safely call
hasOwnProperty in case we get some very strange objects.
This will now also be compiled/transpiled by esbuild.
* import the internal postcss nesting plugin
This allows us to work on it without re-compiling while running tests.
Just like we do with all other code.
* update changelog
* fix: options for nesting / nested plugins
* add tests to ensure passing options to postcss plugin works
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
* partition nodes as soon as possible
Time to write another story on `@apply`...
When we write code like this:
```css
.a {
@apply b;
}
.b {
@apply uppercase;
color: red;
}
```
Then we create 2 Nodes in our context to keep track of. One has
identifier `a`, the other has identifier `b`. However, when we have an
`@apply` and it contains multiple declarations/atrules, then we have to
split up the (aka partition) node into multiple nodes so that we can
guarantee the correct expected sort order.
This means that the above example technically looks like this:
```css
.a {
@apply b;
}
.b {
@apply uppercase;
}
.b {
color: red;
}
```
If this was your input, then we would still have 1 node for identifier
'a', but we would have 2 nodes for identifier 'b'.
As mentioned earlier, this is important to guarantee the correct order,
here is an example:
```css
.b {
@apply md:font-bold xl:font-normal; /* Here we can sort by our
internal rules. This means that the `md` comes before `xl`. */
}
```
... however
```css
.b {
@apply xl:font-normal; /* This now exists _before_ the example below */
}
.b {
@apply md:font-bold; /* Because we respect the order of the user's css */
}
```
So to guarantee the order when doing this:
```css
.b {
@apply xl:font-normal;
@apply lg:font-normal;
}
```
We also split this up into 2 nodes like this:
```css
.b {
@apply xl:font-normal;
}
.b {
@apply lg:font-normal;
}
```
The tricky part is that now only 1 empty `.b` node exists in our context
because we partitioned the orginal node into multiple nodes and moved
the children to the new nodes and because they are new nodes it means
that they have a different identity.
This partitioning used to happen in the expandApplyAtRules code, but
this is a bit too late because the context has already been filled at
this time. Instead, we move the code more to the front, as if you wrote
those separated blocks yourself. Now the code to inject those nodes into
the context happens in a single spot instead of multiple places.
Another good part about this is that we have better consistency between
each layer because it turns out that these two examples generated
different results...
```css
.a {
@apply b;
}
.b {
@apply uppercase;
color: red;
}
```
... is different compared to:
```css
@tailwind components;
@layer components {
.a {
@apply b;
}
.b {
@apply uppercase;
color: red;
}
}
```
Even if both `a` and `b` are being used in one of your content paths...
Yeah.. *sigh*
* add more `@apply` related tests
* update changelog
* remove support for basic nesting (leftover)
* remove leftover todo
This has been fixed already
* improve extractCandidates
When we have a css rule that is defined as `.foo, .bar {}`, then we will
crawl each selector and link it to the same node. This is useful because
now our Map looks something like this:
```js
Map(2) { 'foo' => Node {}, 'bar' => Node {} }
```
This allows us to later on `@apply foo` or `@apply bar` and we can do a
direct lookup for this "candidate".
When we have css defined as `span {}`, then we consider this
"non-ondemandable". This means that we will _always_ inject these rules
into the `*` section and call it a day.
However, it could happen that you have something like this: `span, .foo
{}` up until now this was totally fine. It contains a non-ondemandable
selector (`span`) and therefore we injected this into that `*` section.
However, the issue occurs if you now try to `@apply foo`. Since we had
an early return for this use case it didn't endup in our Map from above
and now you get an error like:
```
The `foo` class does not exist. If `foo` is a custom class, make sure it
is defined within a `@layer` directive."
```
So instead what we will do is keep track whether or not a css rule
contains any on-demandable classes. If this is the case then we still
generate it always by putting it in that `*` section. However, we will
still register all on-demandable classes in our Map (in this case `.foo`).
This allows us to `@apply foo` again!
* update changelog
* Always include css with apply in context
* Use let
We use it more consistently
* Remove early return
To match the style of the surrounding code
* Don't return layer directives
They do not need to be returned here. If it's needed in the future its easy enough to add it back.
* Use let
* Update changelog
* fix typo
And re-format comments
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
* improve collapsing of duplicate properties
In theory, we don't have to do anything because the browser is smart
enough to figure everything out. However, leaving in duplicate
properties is not that ideal for file size.
Our previous method was pretty simple: if you see a declaration you
already saw in this rule, delete the previous one and keep the current
one.
This works pretty well, but this gets rid of **all** the declarations
with the same property. This is not great for overrides for older
browsers.
In a perfect world, we can handle this based on your target browser but
this is a lot of unnecessary complexity and will slow things down
performance wise.
Alternative, we improved the solution by being a bit smarter:
1. Delete duplicate declarations that have the same property and value
(this will get rid of **exact** duplications).
2. Delete declarations with the same property and the same **unit**.
This means that we will reduce this:
```css
.example {
height: 50%;
height: 100px;
height: 20vh;
height: 30%;
height: 50px;
height: 30vh;
transform: var(--value);
transform: var(--value);
}
```
To:
```diff-css
.example {
- height: 50%; /* Another height exists later with a `%` unit */
- height: 100px; /* Another height exists later with a `px` unit */
- height: 20vh; /* Another height exists later with a `vh` unit */
height: 30%;
height: 50px;
height: 30vh;
- transform: var(--value); /* Value is too complex, but is **exactly** the same as the one below */
transform: var(--value);
}
```
This will reduce the values that we are 100% sure that can be safely
removed. This will still result in some overrides but the browser can
handle those for you.
Fixes: #6844
* update changelog
* ensure apply of rule inside atrule works
If that atrule happens to contain another rule that is technically
unrelated.
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
* update changelog
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
* ensure that strangely used jsx with interpolation gets detected
Co-authored-by: Luke Warlow <projects@warlow.dev>
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
* update changelog
Co-authored-by: Luke Warlow <projects@warlow.dev>
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
* only generate variants for non-user layers
If you have the following css:
```css
@tailwind utilities;
.foo {
color: red;
}
```
And you HTML looks like this:
```html
<div class="hover:foo"></div>
```
Then the output should _not_ generate a `.hover\:foo {}` class.
* ensure that you can apply user csss (without variants)
* update changelog
* remove early return so that all plugins are handled
We had an early return so that once a plugin was matched, that we could
stop running the code through the other plugins. However, in this case
we have an issue that user defined css is technically also a plugin.
This means that:
- `bg-green-light`
Would check for:
- `bg-green-light` (no hit, continue)
- `bg-green` (Hit! Don't execute next plugins)
- `bg` (This is the one that would have generated `bg-green-light`)
We tested this change and it doesn't seem to have an impact functionally
and also not really performance wise.
* update changelog
* insert in correct spot
We were injecting the always on `@tailwind defaults` layer at the beginning of
the file. However, if a `@tailwind base` layer is available, then that
will now be injected _after_ the defaults layer. The base layer does
contain some reset that are now overriding the defaults we set.
So now we will:
- Insert the `@tailwind defaults` layer at the beginning of the file
_if_ there is no `@tailwind base`
- Insert the `@tailwind defaults` layer after the `@tailwind base` layer
if it exists.
* update changelog
Default's declarations are now processed and merged even when there is no tailwind base directive included in the stylesheet. Without this applying tailwind utilities in css modules would break if they relied on defaults rules.
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
