Adapters v0

[matthewp]

Changes

• This provides initial support for adapters for SSR usage. The first adapter provided via this PR is one that can be used with Node.js generically. Example usage with Express:

astro.config.mjs

import nodejs from '@astrojs/node';

export default {
  integrations: [nodejs()]
}

server.mjs

import express from 'express';
import { handler as ssrHandler } from './dist/server/entry.mjs';

const app = express();
app.use(ssrHandler);

app.listen(8080);

Testing

Tests updated, also the examples/ssr example uses this new adapter.

Docs

These are coming in a separate PR.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 34f64f7

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
astro	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[natemoo-re]

Looking good overall! Had a few comments.

Also I'm still considering how I feel about adapter being inside integrations. IMO a top-level adapter: nodejs() option would make it clear that you can only have one adapter. Internally, we can just merge it into the integrations array.

[matthewp]

Also I'm still considering how I feel about adapter being inside integrations.

I don't have a strong opinion here, other than we kind of need setAdapter anyways because an adapter has some additional properties like renderers do. So if adapter: nodejs() is an AstroIntegration that also has to call setAdapter that seems... kind of odd? Otherwise it would be something like this:

{
  name: string;
  serverEntrypoint: string;
  integration: AstroIntegration;
}

Which is ok and something I played around with, but some other feedback elsewhere made it sound like aligning with the renderer way would be good. Happy to discuss, but these are the tradeoffs in my head.

[FredKSchott]

Copying a comment from Discord that I made before realizing this convo was happening:

Yup, I'll just +1 the idea of an adapter being a special adapter: node() config. Even if we know as implementors that it's just another type of integration, most users will never know that and think of it as a special thing ("I deploy to Netlify, so I set my adapter to netlify()"). I think we want to document it this way, so giving it a special place in the config makes sense as a user story.

[matthewp]

@natemoo-re @FredKSchott I updated the PR to accept the adapter through an adapter property like so:

import nodejs from '@astrojs/node';

export default {
  adapter: nodejs()
}

It's still an AstroIntegration though.

[natemoo-re]

Looks great!

[FredKSchott]

LGTM! Left two small comments