UglifyJS was not active during my most recent submission.
Here is the config
new webpack.optimize.UglifyJsPlugin({
compress: false,
mangle: false,
output: { beautify: true },
sourceMap: true
}),
You can see that i even turned on beautify.
If you examine my js files you can see my original source code underneath all the webpack code.
My Code:
<script>
import { START_NEW_VOTE } from '@/store/actions'
import voteResults from '@/components/viewer/VoteResults'
export default {
name: 'live-config',
methods:{
startVote(){
this.$store.dispatch(START_NEW_VOTE)
}
},
components:{
voteResults
}
}
</script>
Webpack output code:
"7Q9G": function(module, __webpack_exports__, __webpack_require__) {
"use strict";
var __WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_0__store_actions__ = __webpack_require__("mUbh");
var __WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_1__components_viewer_VoteResults__ = __webpack_require__("vVR9");
__webpack_exports__["a"] = {
name: "live-config",
methods: {
startVote: function startVote() {
this.$store.dispatch(__WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_0__store_actions__["c"]);
}
},
components: {
voteResults: __WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_1__components_viewer_VoteResults__["a"]
}
};
},
I don’t think the webpack code can be labeled “obfuscated”.
In response to the first poster
to expand on this, your code should be “human” readable. a function named “+ZMJ” doesn’t convey what the function actually does.
These cryptic function names are the module id’s that webpack assigns. They have nothing to do with the twitch extension logic itself, which is what Twitch is concerned about.
If Twitch could just specify which file violated the obfuscation rule, we could all avoid wasting time on speculation.