Can you create reproducible example using pure webpack, because I can't get two sourceURL

/*# sourceURL=webpack://./src/app/b/b.component.scss */
/*# sourceURL=webpack://./src/styles.scss */

@alexander-akait all you need to do is enable sourcemaps in sass-loader.

Here's an example

master...alan-agius4:css-loader:repro#diff-b15393677601d8b57053e1e25f5e3e9ef695b570273563e83f2217315bf28cf1R2520-R2522

A sourceURL comment will be added for each file in the sass compilation.

Codecov Report

Base: 96.82% // Head: 96.81% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (05c3699) compared to base (3f3f302).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1487      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.82%   96.81%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        1133     1131       -2     
  Branches      412      411       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         1097     1095       -2     
  Misses         27       27              
  Partials        9        9              

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

hm, maybe you are right, I looked at code and found we already built-in source map:

const data = `sourceMappingURL=data:application/json;charset=utf-8;base64,${base64}`;
const sourceMapping = `/*# ${data} */`;

and then duplicate:

const sourceURLs = cssMapping.sources.map(
  (source) => `/*# sourceURL=${cssMapping.sourceRoot || ""}${source} */`
);

Not sure why we are doing it, I want to look at github history and found why it was implemented

Correct, I did look into the git history before doing the PR to see the reasoning behind this. But I didn’t find anything meaningful. It looks like it was implemented like this from the beginning.

@alan-agius4 That is really strange, no one reports about it before 😃

@alan-agius4 6da7e90, looks like it was implemented for angular 😄

Okay, let's merge and release, I think it should not break the logic, because we really have the same in sourceMappingURL (maybe chrome had bugs with sources before, but I think we can't check)

Thanks @alexander-akait