module: createRequireFromPath missed docs

[doertedev]

Fixes: #23710

Adding the missing documentation

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[Trott]

/ping @guybedford

[Trott]

Am I mistaken or won't the code fail if utils is a directory unless it's like this?:

Suggested change

	const requireUtil = createRequireFromPath('../src/utils'); // can also be a file
	const requireUtil = createRequireFromPath('../src/utils/.');

And if so, then the comment is misleading because it implies that passing a directory without /. at the end will work.

And explaining the /. requirement is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Probably best to update this to point to a file and not a directory at all.

Suggested change

	const requireUtil = createRequireFromPath('../src/utils'); // can also be a file
	const requireUtil = createRequireFromPath('../src/utils/index.js');

[guybedford]

Yes we should likely go with this last suggestion please.

[Trott]

(Commit message subsystem should be doc rather than module. Someone can fix that on landing, but if you end up rebasing or otherwise amending the commit message, you can save someone some keystrokes by updating it.)

[Trott]

Hi, @doertedev! Welcome, and thanks for the PR!

I might be mistaken, but think the current code sample needs to be changed, and we probably don't want to try to document using directories instead of filenames until the PR that adds support for trailing-slash-without-a-.-after-it lands. /ping @guybedford @targos

[doertedev]

Eeer sorry in this case I must have misinterpreted #23710 (comment) which stated that a PR for dirs is already in place ??!?

[creativecomposer]

@doertedev the PR for dirs is not yet in place, so the example must be updated little differently, more in line with @Trott comment above.

I went ahead and did that instead of your PR. Is that OK for you?

[BridgeAR]

LGTM with the suggestion from @Trott

[guybedford]

Thanks for the PR! We just need to update the example as @Trott describes.

[guybedford]

Yes we should likely go with this last suggestion please.

[gireeshpunathil]

ping @doertedev - can address the review comments?

[HarshithaKP]

I will pick this up.

[HarshithaKP]

Looking further, I see that the required changes are actually realized through #23818 and hence there is nothing left to do in this PR

[jasnell]

Looks like this can be closed.