Looks like esm.mjs missing on #ab/esm-support branch (should be on 'files' sections i suppose). And resolution still fails when modules internally rely on '--experimental-specifier-resolution=node' flag.

@evg656e Good catch; I added the missing entry to our files array.

How do you propose we support --experimental-specifier-resolution=node? Remember that we need to register our own resolver hook. It's also unclear whether or not modules will be allowed to rely on experimental-specifier-resolution=node. It's experimental. It might be removed. Certainly third-party code wouldn't be allowed to rely on it, because the consumer might not have it enabled.

@cspotcode Is it flag experimental or the resolution itself? As far as i concerned, this resolution algorithm (sort of) is used by typescript itself when it comes to module loading. And i don't see much utility in esm modules in node without it.

Can we inspect node options to see, whether this flag was used or not? And switch to appropriate algorithm?

@evg656e I think it would help if you share a specific example of what you want to achieve, and how it is not working currently.

ESM hooks are experimental. This includes experimental-specifier-resolution=node and --loader / --experimental-loader. For example, in testing, I was able to make node reliably segfault, so it's got some serious bugs.

When TypeScript is set to "moduleResolution": "node", that is the CommonJS style of node resolution, not necessarily the new ESM resolution. ts-node still works well with CommonJS. You can take a look at our resolver; it adds missing file extensions, for example, and it resolves node_modules.

Can we inspect node options to see, whether this flag was used or not? And switch to appropriate algorithm?

If you find out, let us know. You'll probably need to ask the relevant people on the node team, since the hooks feature is still in flux and they are changing things.

@cspotcode I've created sample repo: https://github.com/evg656e/rebenchmark-example. I've also forked this branch and add some changes to make my example work (it did not work with the explicit resolution algorithm).

I also briefly looked at whether it's possible to somehow access the node options through process.argv inside loader, and it seems like it's impossible (options like --loader or --experimental-specifier-resolution disappear)

@evg656e excellent, thank you. Here's a link to your branch, for anyone else who might be reading this: https://github.com/evg656e/ts-node/tree/ab/esm-support

I probably will not have time to look at this till the weekend, but I appreciate the help.

@cspotcode Actually, there is process.execArgv that allows to inspect Node invocation options. I modified getOptionValue code, now it respects passed options.

Last question is why there no '.js' extension in extensions variable. According to Node sources (https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/d01a06a916efd30844e1e0a38e79dc0054fc4451/lib/internal/modules/esm/resolve.js#L240) it should be there, and it causes my example not to work also.

@evg656e Cool beans, I have a few questions about the resolve behavior, to make sure we end up with a solid implementation:

• I'm concerned that parsing process.execArgv may be a hack that's prone to failure. Do we have to parse multiple variants of that flag being passed, to ensure we behave identically to node's parsing? (--flag=value, --flag value, and how is weird stuff like --require --flag parsed?)
• We're installing a hook anyway; is it easier for us to implement our own flag? The idiomatic ts-node way of doing this is via an env var.
• Are there situations where an end-user must use node's built-in-flag verbatim, since they're already going to be passing --loader ts-node/esm?
• What if we allowed the user to pass --loader ts-node/esm-node? Are there situations where our hook is installed, but the default resolve behavior is still being invoked and needs to be preserved?

The missing .js extension is probably an oversight. It's similar, though not identical, to one of the TODO items in my original post: #1010 (comment) We need a way to resolve to .js files but recognize when we're not supposed to be compiling them.

What is the intention of your example? I see it running a benchmark tool, and there's only a single .ts file. I think it would help if we have a clearer idea of what the end-user is trying to accomplish in that example, and why ESM support is necessary.

@cspotcode The idea of this example that i have a benchmark tool, that internally uses esm modules (even with 3rdparty non-esm modules). And it works fine with experimental-specifier-resolution=node flag. I've tried to implement 'out of the box' typescript support. And currently it's impossible to do that with cjs ts-node/register. Then i found your proposal, and with a bit tweaks i was able to make it work. Demo repo has only 2 benchmarks (one js and one ts), but of course end user will be able to add any number of benchmarks.

More over, i'm experimenting with esm modules in node for a while, and have other projects that rely on this flag. I suppose, that without this flag any legacy cjs module will not work in Node. As i can see, this flag actively maintained for now (there is bug in resolve algorihtm actively being worked on). So i don't think ignoring this flag at all is a good idea.

I'm concerned that parsing process.execArgv may be a hack that's prone to failure

I used npm arg module to parse process.execArgv, ts-node have this parser in dependencies, so i think it will work fine (i have tested trivial use cases like omiting '=' sign). Of course, it may not be 100% node compatible, since we have no access to internal getOption function.

The idiomatic ts-node way of doing this is via an env var.

I have thought about this too, but since i found process.execArgv i decided to use this option. Theoretically we can have both approaches, one fallback for another. Need more feedback.

Mocha recently added native esm support too, so i think we can look for their implementation decisions.

One more thought: I get an error even when I have not loaded a single ts file. This means that the current custom loader applies its internal resolution algorithm even for js files, although logically, it should fallback to the default implementation (defaultResolve, like mentioned in docs https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html#esm_transpiler_loader).

@evg656e if I understand correctly, you want to let users write their benchmark files in ESM? If so, can we update the example so that the benchmark files are loaded as ESM? Right now the package.json doesn't specify, so they're defaulting to CommonJS. Your benchmark tool could require() them and everything would work.

Even without experimental-specifier-resolution=node, legacy modules still work because they are loaded via the CommonJS algorithms, not the new ESM resolver, right?

One more thought: I get an error even when I have not loaded a single ts file.

Please post a copy of errors when you encounter them; it helps everyone debug.

This means that the current custom loader applies its internal resolution algorithm even for js files

Yeah, sounds like the same oversight as mentioned here #1010 (comment)
However, we do want to allow non-compiled .js files to load .ts files.

I noticed your benchmark tool doesn't work on Linux; is that intentional?
https://github.com/evg656e/rebenchmark/blob/master/bin/rebenchmark.js#L1

Right now the package.json doesn't specify, so they're defaulting to CommonJS.

I think i tried both variants and all variants failed with your initial custom loader. Over more, it doesn't matter at all when i don't use custom loader (both variants work). I think it work because tool itself has proper package.json with specified type: 'module'.

Your benchmark tool could require() them and everything would work.

Internally it uses dynamic import. It's by design. There is similar bench-runner build upon cjs modules.

I noticed your benchmark tool doesn't work on Linux; is that intentional?

It's a bug, i have never tested this in Linux, copied this line from stackoverflow.

Even without experimental-specifier-resolution=node, legacy modules still work because they are loaded via the CommonJS algorithms, not the new ESM resolver, right?

Not sure. I think if you importing some CJS module from ESM module, e.g. somwhere in your code: import foo from 'bar', and bar is CJS module, then first will be invoked ESM resolver. And without experimental-specifier-resolution=node flag it will definitely will fail. But inside bar CJS resolver will be used.

I can create some abstract repo with corner cases if you wish.

Please post a copy of errors when you encounter them; it helps everyone debug.

Error: ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\rebenchmark\lib\reporters C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\rebenchmark\lib\cli.js module at finalizeResolution (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist-raw\node-esm-resolve-implementation.js:329:11) at moduleResolve (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist-raw\node-esm-resolve-implementation.js:677:10) at Object.defaultResolve (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist-raw\node-esm-resolve-implementation.js:718:13) at C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\src\esm.ts:50:38 at Generator.next (<anonymous>) at C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist\esm.js:8:71 at new Promise (<anonymous>) at __awaiter (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist\esm.js:4:12) at resolve (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\rebenchmark-example\node_modules\ts-node\dist\esm.js:29:16) at Loader.resolve (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:97:40)

An error occurs on import '../lib/cli'; from rebenchmark/bin/rebenchmark.js entry point.

Linux does not allow passing arguments via shebangs. This is controlled by the Linux kernel. We have a bunch of other tickets where this has caught people off-guard, but to clarify, it's not a ts-node or a shell issue. Since it may affect developer experience, do you know how you want to support Linux? I can think of a few ways you can do it, but it will help to know which you prefer.

I think if you importing some CJS module from ESM module, e.g. somwhere in your code: import foo from 'bar', and bar is CJS module, then first will be invoked ESM resolver. And without experimental-specifier-resolution=node flag it will definitely will fail.

Actually this should succeed without experimental-specifier-resolution=node. Resolving bare module identifiers is supported in the explicit resolver, too. https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html#esm_features

When you don't use our ESM hook, the benchmark files load as CommonJS. When you do use our ESM hook, the missing .js extension means the resolver doesn't see benchmarks/string.js, so it fails. Once we add that missing .js extension, the benchmark files will be resolved and loaded as CommonJS. You'll still need the ESM hook for resolution, but compilation of CommonJS will happen via our old CommonJS codepath.

@evg656e I added the missing extension. Good catch, thanks.

Our transformSource hook calls ignored, which should make sure we don't compile .js unless allowJs is enabled.
https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node/blob/ab/esm-support/src/esm.ts#L99-L101
https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node/blob/ab/esm-support/src/index.ts#L806-L814

Actually this should succeed without experimental-specifier-resolution=node

Yep, you are right. Problem with my projects that import statements does not use explicit extension. Since then i need to set flag.

@evg656e Ok, that's good. Our ESM loader should be adding missing file extensions, so this should automatically work for you without the ...-resolution=node flag:
https://github.com/TypeStrong/ts-node/blob/ab/esm-support/dist-raw/node-esm-resolve-implementation.js#L310

I explained why we need to auto-add missing file extensions in the proposal: #1007
In short, TS auto-imports omit the file extension, so we need to auto-add it for a good developer experience. (If you hit "add import" in your editor, the resulting code should work)

I tried to use your loader with mocha (recent versions of mocha support native ESM modules) and came across with a new bug:

node --loader ts-node/esm node_modules/mocha/bin/mocha

TypeError [ERR_UNKNOWN_FILE_EXTENSION]: Unknown file extension "" for C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\mocha\bin\mocha
    at defaultGetFormat (internal/modules/esm/get_format.js:65:15)
    at defer (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\ts-node\src\esm.ts:57:33)
    at C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\ts-node\src\esm.ts:79:18
    at Generator.next (<anonymous>)
    at C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\ts-node\dist\esm.js:8:71
    at new Promise (<anonymous>)
    at __awaiter (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\ts-node\dist\esm.js:4:12)
    at getFormat (C:\Users\fromh\Projects\sandbox\github\ts-node\esm-usage-example\mocha\node_modules\ts-node\src\esm.ts:55:5)
    at Loader.getFormat (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:113:42)
    at Loader.getModuleJob (internal/modules/esm/loader.js:244:31)

Without a loader, everything works fine. I added an example to my branch: https://github.com/evg656e/ts-node/tree/ab/esm-support/esm-usage-example/mocha

@evg656e Looks like this is caused by node v14 and not related to ts-node. Here's a reproduction that does not use ts-node.

touch empty-loader.mjs # <-- loader hooks that do not do anything
touch bar # <-- extensionless javascript file
node ./bar # <-- works correctly
node --loader ./empty-loader.mjs ./bar # <-- throws the error you are seeing

If you think it's a bug, you can file a ticket with node. Otherwise, mocha may need an update to be compatible with loaders.

The commit above is untested but it implements the following:

• resolves foo.js to foo.ts, foo.tsx, or foo.jsx, to match what TypeScript does and support including the .js extension in module specifiers

• remove the compileEsm codepath. Everything is compiled the same. If you want to use ESM, you need to set your tsconfig accordingly. This means the ESM codepath consistently gets typechecking; much simpler and without caveats

• merges @evg656e 's execArgv parsing so that we support --experimental-specifier-resolution=node

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 80.709% when pulling 0ea6007 on ab/esm-support into 8372d4d on master.

Added some tests; fixed the tests. I'll merge and publish tonight.

This is released as an experimental feature in v8.10.0. Please test and share your feedback in #1007.