Closes #2173

Thanks for the PR!

I think that it would be good to refactor the options to be

  build: {
    assetsInline: {
      limit: 4096,
      include: ...,
      exclude: ...
    }
  }

So we can use the usual include/exclude createFilter pattern.

But let's wait to see what other maintainers think. I'll add it for discussion in our next team meeting (we just had one, so a bit of patience since we are going to get to this one in two weeks).

谢谢你的公关！

我认为将选项重构为

  build: {
    assetsInline: {
      limit: 4096,
      include: ...,
      exclude: ...
    }
  }

所以我们可以使用通常的包含/排除createFilter模式。

但让我们拭目以待，看看其他维护者的想法。我将在下一次团队会议中添加它以供讨论（我们只有一个，所以请耐心等待，因为我们将在两周内完成这个）。

Thanks, looking forward to the next changes

Any update on this? would love this feature 🙏

emmm... I also think the PR need to #6892 (comment).

I also have this problem, but I don't think this is a correct solution.
Include/Exclude files patterns are error prone because it lets the user define the same file under the same group.
Also it's a bit confusing, does this mean that if I haven't defined my includes, it will automatically defer to the size rule?
What if I have it under include, but does not fit the size rule?

May I offer an alternative solution
#8717

Make it a callback with the file, filesize, and just for kicks, current total size of everything included so far.
User can choose to whitelist, blacklist, and/or toggle on base64 size or combined inlined sizes so far.

Cleaning up stale PRs. The discussion notes for this favoured the API in #8717 instead with a function form. Closing this for now.