Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

I'll add this proposal to the team board for future discussion. About the tests, I think we shouldn't re-run the whole assets playground for this one. Maybe we could add this config to some of the other playgrounds to avoid creating new ones. But we can wait to see what others think about this feature before that. To be honest, we didn't have much requests so far except for the linked discussion but I agree that not having the complete path to be able to use rollupOptions.output.assetsFileNames is a departure from rollup that may be too opinionated.

@karlvr we discussed this PR in today's team meeting and the consensus was that being able to keep the assets structure doesn't justify at this point maintaining an extra config option. We haven't had many requests for this in the past years so it seems there is not enough demand for this extra flexibility. Let's close the PR for now, but thanks for bringing the idea forward.

@patak-dev There is absolutely demand for this

yes, there is demand for this

it's possible using originalFilename like this

rollupOptions: {
  input: pages,
  output: {
    assetFileNames: (assetInfo) => {
      if (assetInfo.name?.endsWith('.html')) {
        return assetInfo.originalFileName
      }
      return 'assets/[name].[ext]'
    },
  },
},

being able to keep the assets structure doesn't justify at this point maintaining an extra config option

Seriously? It's frustrating that assets/ is a dump of EVERYTHING: images, js, css. This affects downstream projects like eleventy-plugin-vite and is just messy at best, deal-breaker for using vite on anything serious.

Still demand for this