I'm not quite sure how to handle relative vs absolute paths. Svelte will simply use the path passed in as the source path. This can cause problems when the compiler is passed an absolute path (rollup) and a sourcemap with relative paths (I think that's correct?). There a few ways to deal with this.

1. Do nothing. Let the caller of the compiler make sure that the paths match.
2. Internally convert the file path to relative.
   2 b. Internally convert the souremap paths to relative as well to guarantee they match.
3. Internally convert the souremap paths to absolute.

Currently number two is implemented but I'm not completely sure it's the right approach. Maybe someone with more experience with sourcemaps can weigh in? Are absolute paths even allowed in source maps?

Hi, thanks so much for the PR, and sorry for the lack of replies while most of the attention was on Svelte v3 stuff!

As I mentioned in chat leading up to this PR, I still feel that the compiler shouldn't do anything with trying to turn absolute paths into relative ones. The compiler is currently completely blind to the filesystem (and is able to happily run in the browser in the REPL), which would be complicated by the use of process.cwd. This really feels to me something that ought to be some other library's responsibility if we can't do it purely from what the compiler is passed.

A more concrete problem is that this now has merge conflicts with master. I'll take a look at that sometime soon and try to resolve them if no one gets to it first.

+1, this is rather a very useful feature. Would be great if this can be looked at. I can do another PR with rebased from master if it helps?

Yeah, I totally dropped the ball on this — sorry. @shirotech that would be amazing, if you're still able to. We'd need some tests along with the PR, and it'd be great if we could avoid using source-map (I have some concerns about the package that haven't been addressed, so ideally we wouldn't need to bundle it alongside the compiler). Thank you!

this uses source-map 0.6.1 which is the last of the sync versions of source-map, the rest are async due to wasm module loading. I couldn't find a nicer source map tool when I was looking for my own purposes. @Rich-Harris is a version that uses 0.6.1 of source-map still an option?

@Rich-Harris

I think we can continue to use the source-map package if the main concern is the whatwg-url polyfill.

This can easily be addressed with overriding the package with an alternative using the resolutions field from the package.json.

e.g. in package.json

  "resolutions": {
    "whatwg-url": "npm:url-shim"
  }

What are your thoughts on this? I can do a rebase and we can remove the resolutions once or if mozilla/source-map#413 has been merged.

I think also of concern was later versions of source-map being asynchronous.

I’m not sure if that will impact anything, will changing the method signature to be async if needed cause any issues other than some refactoring?

The Svelte compiler is itself currently synchronous, which is something we'd like to preserve for a number of reasons. Using an asynchronous library during compilation would make the compiler asynchronous which would break a bunch of existing tooling. The ESLint plugin, for example, would no longer be able to work at all, since ESLint plugins need to operate synchronously on the input code.

Closing in favour of #5015