Electron “require is not defined”

问题

I'm making an application which I need to give access to the file system (fs) module, however even with nodeIntegration enabled the renderer gives me this error:

Uncaught ReferenceError: require is not defined

All similar problems I could find had a solution that said they needed to turn nodeIntegration on, however I already have it enabled.

This is my main.js:

const electron = require('electron');   
const {app, BrowserWindow} = electron;  

let win;

app.on('ready', () => {
    var { width, height } = electron.screen.getPrimaryDisplay().workAreaSize;
    width = 1600;
    height = 900;
    win = new BrowserWindow({'minHeight': 850, 'minWidth': 1600, width, height, webPreferences: {
        contextIsolation: true,
        webSecurity: true,
        nodeIntegration: true
    }});
    win.setMenu(null);
    win.loadFile('index.html');
    win.webContents.openDevTools()
});

My index.js, linked in index.html as <script src="index.js"></script> currently only has require("fs"); in it, I've commented out all the other stuff.

I don't know why require still doesn't work even though nodeIntegration is enabled.

回答1:

When you have nodeIntegration disabled but aren't using contextIsolation, you could use a preload script to expose a safe version of it on the global object. (Note: you shouldn't expose the entire fs module to a remote page!)

Here's an example of using a preload script in this way:

// main process script
const mainWindow = new BrowserWindow({
  webPreferences: {
    contextIsolation: false,
    nodeIntegration: false,
    preload: './preload.js'
  }
})

mainWindow.loadURL('my-safe-file.html')



// preload.js
const { readFileSync } = require('fs')

// the host page will have access to `window.readConfig`,
// but not direct access to `readFileSync`
window.readConfig = function () {
  const data = readFileSync('./config.json')
  return data
}



// renderer.js
const config = window.readConfig()

If you're only loading local pages, and those pages don't load or execute unsafe dynamic content then you might reconsider the use of contextIsolation for this strategy. If you want to keep contextIsolation on, however (and you definitely should if you have a chance of showing unsafe content), you can only communicate with the preload script with message passing via postMessage.

Here's an example of the same scenario above, but with contextIsolation on and using message passing.

// main process script
const mainWindow = new BrowserWindow({
  webPreferences: {
    contextIsolation: true,
    nodeIntegration: false,
    preload: './preload.js'
  }
})

mainWindow.loadURL('my-unsafe-file.html')



// preload.js
const { readFileSync } = require('fs')

const readConfig = function () {
  const data = readFileSync('./config.json')
  return data
}

window.addEventListener('message', (event) => {
  if (event.source !== window) return
  if (event.data.type === 'request') {
    window.postMessage({ type: 'response', content: readConfig() })
  }
})



// renderer.js
window.addEventListener('message', (event) => {
  if (event.source !== window) return
  if (event.data.type === 'response') {
    const config = event.data.content
  }
})
window.postMessage('request')

While this is definitely more verbose and difficult to deal with (and forces things to be async, because message passing is async), it's also much more secure. A pair of small JS wrappers around the postMessage API could make this easier to work with (e.g. via an RPC-like mechanism), but remember that the whole point of using contextIsolation is because you can't trust the renderer, so your preload script shouldn't trust just any message it gets via the postMessage API — you should always verify the event that you receive to ensure that you trust it.

This slide deck describers in detail why turning off Node integration without using context isolation is not always a good idea.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54544519/electron-require-is-not-defined

标签

javascript

html

node.js

electron