Webpack.js.org: what reuseExistingChunk: true means, can give a sample?

[webpack-bot]

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
document not clear

What is the current behavior?
what optimization.splitChunks reuseExistingChunk: true means, can give a sample?
If the current behavior is a bug, please provide the steps to reproduce.

What is the expected behavior?
can give a sample? reuseExistingChunk: true or false, what different?

If this is a feature request, what is motivation or use case for changing the behavior?

Please mention other relevant information such as the browser version, Node.js version, webpack version, and Operating System.

---

This issue was moved from webpack/webpack#7151 by @ooflorent. Original issue was by @8427003.

[EugeneHlushko]

@sokra

I suggest saying in the doc that:

__The option reuseExistingChunk tells SplitChunks plugin to do additional lookup within existing chunks of current cachingGroup and try not to spawn additional chunks for matching modules if it is possible.__

I dont really see how to provide an example better, can you maybe advice @ooflorent

[sokra]

Here is an example:

Chunk 1 (named one): modules A, B, C
Chunk 2 (named two): modules B, C

With the splitChunk configuration of

{
  minChunks: 2,
  reuseExistingChunk: false // default
}

it would create a new chunk containing the common modules B and C:

Chunk 1 (named one): modules A
~Chunk 2 (named two): no modules~ (removed by optimization)
Chunk 3 (named one~two): modules B, C

With the splitChunk configuration of

{
  minChunks: 2,
  reuseExistingChunk: true
}

it would reuse the existing chunk 2 because it matches the modules selected by the cacheGroup:

Chunk 1 (named one): modules A
Chunk 2 (named two): modules B, C

==>

There is a difference in the resulting name. If you don't have names there is no difference.

[EugeneHlushko]

Thanks for input, will modify the page soon

[chrisdothtml]

PR here - #2199

[EugeneHlushko]

Thanks for tackling this one @chrisdothtml , im on road trip across europe till 11th of june thats why it got stalled on my side 👍

[grtan]

@sokra

I tried, but it turned out not to be this way. When i set reuseExistingChunk to true, still produces three files