fix(vite-plugin): production builds (fix: #17267)

[yurks]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Documentation
• Code style update
• Refactor
• Build-related changes
• Other, please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

The PR fulfills these requirements:

• It's submitted to the dev branch (or v[X] branch)
• When resolving a specific issue, it's referenced in the PR's title (e.g. fix: #xxx[,#xxx], where "xxx" is the issue number)
• It's been tested on a Cordova (iOS, Android) app
• It's been tested on an Electron app
• Any necessary documentation has been added or updated in the docs or explained in the PR's description.

If adding a new feature, the PR's description includes:

• A convincing reason for adding this feature (to avoid wasting your time, it's best to start a new feature discussion first and wait for approval before working on it)

Other information:

[yurks]

#17267

[rstoenescu]

Hi @yurks ,

Thank you for contributing!

The problem with this is that the "vite preview" command is run by default with "serve" command and "production" mode. As per the Vite docs on the "vite preview" cmd: "Locally preview the production build". If we only look at the command as in this PR, then "vite preview" will produce a hybrid compilation, wrongly assuming it's a "dev" build.

What are your thoughts on this?

[rstoenescu]

Vite command	viteConf.command	viteConf.mode
serve	serve	development
build	build	production
preview	serve	production

[yurks]

@rstoenescu but preview could be run with another mode, like vite preview --mode staging, and current implementation will fail as well.

And yes, I forgot about preview ;) It looks like more correct condition for enabling tree-shaking would be command === 'serve' && mode === 'development'. What do you think?

[athisun]

@yurks I think the best solution may be to directly check process.env.NODE_ENV instead of using envConfig.mode. I explain the thinking in this issue (which I may need to close as a duplicate): #17859. Do you agree? And could we update this PR, or should I open a new one?

To maintain the fix for Vitest in Issue #15997 (PR #15999), instead of process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development', we should use either:

• process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production' (I think this is ideal), or
• process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development' || process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test'

Using @rstoenescu's comparison table:

Command	viteConf.command	viteConf.mode	process.env.NODE_ENV	Should alias?
vite serve	serve	development	development	✅
vite serve --mode prd	serve	prd	development	✅
vite serve --mode production	serve	production	development	✅
vite build	build	production	production	❌
vite build --mode prd	build	prd	production	❌
vite build --mode production	build	production	production	❌
vite preview	serve	production	production	❌
vite preview --mode prd	serve	prd	production	❌
vite preview --mode production	serve	production	production	❌
vitest run	serve	test	test	✅
vitest run --mode prd	serve	prd	test	✅
vitest run --mode production	serve	production	test	✅

Command	viteConf.command	viteConf.mode	process.env.NODE_ENV	process.env.CI	Should alias?
[CI] vitest run	serve	test	test	true	✅
[CI] vitest run --mode prd	serve	prd	test	true	✅
[CI] vitest run --mode production	serve	production	test	true	✅