Closes#15220
This PR fixes an issue where the upgrade tool would not be able to load
some JavaScript config files across different drive letters on Windows.
The issue in detail is that `path.relative(…)` tries to build a relative
path but if the file is inside the same folder, it won't start the
relative path with a `./` so we manually appended it in case that it
isn't there. The issue on Windows specifically is that
`file.relative(…)` can also return a legit absolute path, e.g. when the
file is on a different drive. In this case we obviously don't want to
prefix a path with `./`.
## Test plan
To reproduce this issue, I checked out a Tailwind v3 project _on a
different drive letter than my Windows installation_. In that case, I
was adding a repo inside `D:` while `npm` was installed in `C:`. I then
run `npx @tailwindcss/upgrade` to reproduce the issue.
The fix was validated with a local `bun` run of the upgrade tool:
While testing the latest alpha release across Tailwind v3 projects, we
noticed one regression in relation to the default color of `<button>`
elements. In v3, the reset would change the default to `inherit` but in
v4 we would _not include it in the reset snippet inserted by the upgrade
too_.
This PR changes the upgrade snippet to include it:
```diff
/*
In Tailwind CSS v4, basic styles are applied to form elements by default. To
maintain compatibility with v3, the following resets have been added:
*/
@layer base {
input,
textarea,
select,
button {
border: 0px solid;
border-radius: 0;
padding: 0;
+ color: inherit;
background-color: transparent;
}
}
```
This PR also ensures that there's a newline between the two code
snippets.
## Test Plan
### Before
### After
<img width="1354" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-21 at 15 42 58"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9a4503fe-683f-4d08-abf2-7dd111ed5428">
This PR introduces consistent base styles for buttons and form controls
in Tailwind CSS v4.
## Motivation
In v3, form elements lack default styles, which can be
confusing—especially when certain elements, like a text input without a
placeholder or value, are rendered completely invisible on the page.
The goal of this change is to provide reasonable default styles for
buttons, inputs, selects, and textareas that are (mostly) consistent
across all browsers while remaining easy to customize with your own
styles.
This improvement should make Tailwind more accessible for developers new
to the framework and more convenient in scenarios where you need to
quickly create demos (e.g., using Tailwind Play).
## Light and dark mode support
These styles support both light and dark mode, achieved using the
`light-dark()` CSS function. While browser support for this function is
still somewhat limited, Lightning CSS transpiles it to a CSS
variable-based approach that works in older browsers.
For this approach to function correctly, a default `color-scheme` must
be set in your CSS (as explained in [the Lightning CSS
documentation](https://lightningcss.dev/transpilation.html#light-dark()-color-function)).
This PR addresses this requirement by setting the `color-scheme` to
`light` on the `html` element in Preflight.
<img width="1712" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dba56368-1427-47b3-9419-7c2f6313a944">
<img width="1709" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3d84fcd2-9606-4626-8e03-164a1dce9018">
## Breaking changes
While we don’t expect these changes to significantly impact v3 users
upgrading to v4, there may be minor differences for those relying on the
simpler v3 styles.
For example, Preflight now applies a `border-radius` to buttons and form
controls. If you weren’t explicitly setting the border radius to `0` in
your project, you’ll need to do so to restore the previous look.
Thankfully, reverting to the v3 styles is straightforward—just add the
following reset to your CSS:
```css
@layer base {
input,
textarea,
select,
button {
border: 0px solid;
border-radius: 0;
padding: 0;
background-color: transparent;
}
}
```
It’s worth noting that this reset doesn't touch the
`::file-selector-button` styles that were added in this PR. This is
because it's not possible to reliably "undo" these styles and restore
the original user-agent styles (which is what was used in v3), as these
are different in each browser. However, these new styles actually match
the defaults in most browsers pretty closely, so hopefully this just
won't be an issue.
## Codemod
This PR includes a codemod that automatically inserts the above
mentioned v3 reset to help avoid breaking changes during the upgrade.
The codemod will insert the following CSS:
```css
/*
In Tailwind CSS v4, basic styles are applied to form elements by default. To
maintain compatibility with v3, the following resets have been added:
*/
@layer base {
input,
textarea,
select,
button {
border: 0px solid;
border-radius: 0;
padding: 0;
background-color: transparent;
}
}
```
## Testing
These changes have been tested across a wide range of browsers,
including Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, and Opera on macOS and Windows,
as well as Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and several lesser-known browsers on
iOS and Android.
However, some quirks still exist in certain mobile browsers, such as iOS
Safari, which adds too much bottom padding below date and time inputs:
<img width="1548" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-20 at 3 57 20 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/507c7724-ac41-4634-a2b3-61ac4917ebce">
The only reliable way to address these issues is by applying
`appearance: none` to these form controls. However, this felt too
opinionated for Preflight, so we’ve opted to leave such adjustments to
user-land implementations.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Reinink <jonathan@reinink.ca>
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
This PR fixes an issue where the Tailwind root file detection was wrong.
Whenever a CSS file contains any of the `@tailwind` directives or an
`@import` to any of the Tailwind files, the file is considered a
Tailwind root file.
If multiple CSS files are part of the same tree, then we make the
nearest common parent the root file.
This root file will be the file where we add `@config` and/or inject
other changes during the migration process.
However, if your folder structure looked like this:
```css
/* index.css */
@import "./base.css";
@import "./typography.css";
@import "tailwindcss/components"; /* This makes index.css a root file */
@import "./utilities.css";
/* base.css */
@tailwind base; /* This makes base.css a root file */
/* utilities.css */
@tailwind utilities; /* This makes utilities.css a root file */
```
Then we computed that `index.css` nad `base.css` were considered root
files even though they belong to the same tree (because `base.css` is
imported by `index.css`).
This PR fixes that behaviour by essentially being less smart, and just
checking again if any sheets are part of the same tree.
# Test plan:
Added an integration test that covers this scenario and fails before the
fix.
Also ran it on our tailwindcss.com codebase.
| Before | After |
| --- | --- |
| <img width="1072" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8ee99a59-335e-4221-b368-a8cd81e85191">
| <img width="1072" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fe5acae4-d3fc-43a4-bd31-eee768a3a6a5">
|
(Yes, I know the migration still fails, but that's a different issue.)
This PR improves the discoverability of Tailwind config files when we
are trying to link them to your CSS files.
When you have multiple "root" CSS files in your project, and if they
don't include an `@config` directive, then we tried to find the Tailwind
config file in your current working directory.
This means that if you run the upgrade command from the root of your
project, and you have a nested folder with a separate Tailwind setup,
then the nested CSS file would link to the root Tailwind config file.
Visually, you can think of it like this:
```
.
├── admin
│ ├── src
│ │ └── styles
│ │ └── index.css <-- This will be linked to (1)
│ └── tailwind.config.js (2)
├── src
│ └── styles
│ └── index.css <-- This will be linked to (1)
└── tailwind.config.js (1)
```
If you run the upgrade command from the root of your project, then the
`/src/styles/index.css` will be linked to `/tailwind.config.js` which is
what we expect.
But `/admin/src/styles/index.css` will _also_ be linked to
`/tailwind.config.js`
With this PR we improve this behavior by looking at the CSS file, and
crawling up the parent tree. This mens that the new behavior looks like
this:
```
.
├── admin
│ ├── src
│ │ └── styles
│ │ └── index.css <-- This will be linked to (2)
│ └── tailwind.config.js (2)
├── src
│ └── styles
│ └── index.css <-- This will be linked to (1)
└── tailwind.config.js (1)
```
Now `/src/styles/index.css` will be linked to `/tailwind.config.js`, and
`/admin/src/styles/index.css` will be linked to
`/admin/tailwind.config.js`.
When we discover the Tailwind config file, we will also print a message
to the user to let them know which CSS file is linked to which Tailwind
config file.
This should be a safe improvement because if your Tailwind config file
had a different name, or if it lived in a sibling folder then Tailwind
wouldn't find it either and you already required a `@config "…";`
directive in your CSS file to point to the correct file.
In the unlikely event that it turns out that 2 (or more) CSS files
resolve to the same to the same Tailwind config file, then an upgrade
might not be safe and some manual intervention might be needed. In this
case, we will show a warning about this.
<img width="1552" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7a1ad11d-18c5-4b7d-9a02-14f0116ae955">
Test plan:
---
- Added an integration test that properly links the nearest Tailwind
config file by looking up the tree
- Added an integration test that resolves 2 or more CSS files to the
same config file, resulting in an error where manual intervention is
needed
- Ran it on the Tailwind UI codebase
Running this on Tailwind UI's codebase it looks like this:
<img width="1552" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/21785428-5e0d-47f7-80ec-dab497f58784">
---------
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
This PR adds an improvement to the upgrade tool to make sure that if you
pass a single CSS file, that the upgrade tool resolves all the imports
in that file and processes them as well.
Test plan:
---
Created a project where `index.css` imports `other.css`. Another
`leave-me-alone.css` is created to proof that this file is _not_
changed. Running the upgrade guide using `index.css` also migrates
`other.css` but not `leave-me-alone.css`.
Here is a video so you don't have to manually create it:
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/20decf77-77d2-4a7c-8ff1-accb1c77f8c1
We noticed that in the current alpha 34 release, the `package.json` file
of the `@tailwindcss/node` package only defines `tailwindcss` as a dev
dependency. This makes it very easy for version mismatches to happen
when a v3 version (or an earlier v4 alpha for that matter) was installed
in the same project:
```json
{
"name": "@tailwindcss/node",
"version": "4.0.0-alpha.34",
"description": "A utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom user interfaces.",
"license": "MIT",
"repository": {
"type": "git",
"url": "https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss.git",
"directory": "packages/@tailwindcss-node"
},
"bugs": "https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/issues",
"homepage": "https://tailwindcss.com",
"files": [
"dist/"
],
"publishConfig": {
"provenance": true,
"access": "public"
},
"exports": {
".": {
"types": "./dist/index.d.ts",
"import": "./dist/index.mjs",
"require": "./dist/index.js"
},
"./require-cache": {
"types": "./dist/require-cache.d.ts",
"default": "./dist/require-cache.js"
},
"./esm-cache-loader": {
"types": "./dist/esm-cache.loader.d.mts",
"default": "./dist/esm-cache.loader.mjs"
}
},
"devDependencies": {
"tailwindcss": "4.0.0-alpha.34"
},
"dependencies": {
"enhanced-resolve": "^5.17.1",
"jiti": "^2.0.0-beta.3"
},
"scripts": {
"build": "tsup-node",
"dev": "pnpm run build -- --watch"
}
}
```
Furthermore, we were trying to fix issues where our integration test
setup could not install `tailwindcss@3` because of how we did pnpm
overrides.
This PR fixes this by:
- Ensuring every client that calls into `tailwindcss` core marks it as a
version-pinned dependency. You are still required to install
`tailwindcss` in your project along side a client (e.g.
`@tailwindcss/vite`) but we now only use your installed version for
importing the respective `.css` files. For the core logic, we are now
requiring each package to use `tailwindcss` at the same version. This
should help resolve issues like
https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/discussions/14652
- We tried to eliminate the dependency on `tailwindcss` from the
`@tailwindcss/upgrade` package. Unfortunately this is not possible to do
right now because we need to load the CSS files from v4 to create the
right environment. In a future version we could bundle the required CSS
files with `@tailwidncss/upgrade` but it doesn't seem necessary for now.
- We then changed our integration test overrides to only override the
`tailwindcss` package that are dependencies of the known list of
packages that we have `tailwindcss` dependencies on: `@tailwindcss/node`
and `@tailwindcss/upgrade`. This ensures that we can install v3 of
`tailwindcss` in the integration tests and it will work. Something we
want to do for some upgrade tests.
# Test plan
Integration work again. Furthermore we added a quick setup with the CLI
using the local tarballs and ensured it works:
```bash
pnpm init
pnpm install ../../tailwindcss/dist/tailwindcss-cli.tgz
pnpm install ../../tailwindcss/dist/tailwindcss.tgz
echo '@import "tailwindcss";' > index.css
echo '<div class="underline"></div>' > index.html
pnpm tailwindcss -i index.css -o out.css
cat out.css
```
This PR fixes an issue where imports above Tailwind directives didn't
get a `layer(…)` argument.
Given this CSS:
```css
@import "./typography.css";
@tailwind base;
@tailwind components;
@tailwind utilities;
```
It was migrated to:
```css
@import "./typography.css";
@import "tailwindcss";
```
But to ensure that the typography styles end up in the correct location,
it requires the `layer(…)` argument.
This PR now migrates the input to:
```css
@import "./typography.css" layer(base);
@import "tailwindcss";
```
Test plan:
---
Added an integration test where an import receives the `layer(…)`, but
an import that eventually contains `@utility` does not receive the
`layer(…)` argument. This is necessary otherwise the `@utility` will be
nested when we are processing the inlined CSS.
Running this on the Commit template, we do have a proper `layer(…)`
<img width="585" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/538055e6-a9ac-490d-981f-41065a6b59f9">
This PR fixes an issue where an `@config` was injected in a strange
location if you have multiple CSS files with Tailwind directives.
Let's say you have this setup:
```css
/* ./src/index.css */
@import "./tailwind-setup.css";
/* ./src/tailwind-setup.css */
@import "./base.css";
@import "./components.css";
@import "./utilities.css";
/* ./src/base.css */
@tailwind base;
/* ./src/components.css */
@tailwind components;
/* ./src/utilities.css */
@tailwind utilities;
```
In this case, `base.css`, `components.css`, and `utilities.css` are all
considered Tailwind roots because they contain Tailwind directives or
imports.
Since there are multiple roots, the nearest common ancestor should
become the tailwind root (where `@config` is injected). In this case,
the nearest common ancestor is `tailwind-setup.css` (not `index.css`
because that's further away).
Before this change, we find the common ancestor between `base.css` and
`components.css` which would be `index.css` instead of
`tailwind-setup.css`.
In a next iteration, we compare `index.css` with `utilities.css` and
find that there is no common ancestor (because the `index.css` file has
no parents). This resulted in the `@config` being injected in
`index.css` and in `utilities.css`.
Continuing with the rest of the migrations, we migrate the `index.css`'s
`@config` away, but we didn't migrate the `@config` from
`utilities.css`.
With this PR, we don't even have the `@config` in the `utilities.css`
file anymore.
Test plan
---
1. Added an integration test with a non-migrateable config file to
ensure that the `@config` is injected in the correct file.
2. Added an integration test with a migrateable config file to ensure
that the CSS config is injected in the correct file. h/t @philipp-spiess
3. Ran the upgrade on the https://commit.tailwindui.com project and
ensured that
1. The `@config` does not exist in the `utilities.css` file (this was
the first bug we solved)
2. The `@config` is replaced in the `tailwind.css` file correctly.
<img width="592" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/02e3f6ea-a85d-46c2-ac93-09f34ac4a4b8">
<img width="573" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e372eb5f-5732-4052-ab39-096ba7970ff6">
During the migration process, a lot of changes to the CSS file happen.
Some parts are converted, some parts are deleted and some new CSS is
added.
To make sure we are generating a sensible and good looking CSS file, we
will sort the final CSS and pretty print it.
The order we came up with looks like this:
```css
/* Imports */
@import "tailwindcss";
@import "../other.css";
/* Configuration */
@config "../path/to/tailwindcss.config.js";
@plugin "my-plugin-1";
@plugin "my-plugin-2";
@source "./foo/**/*.ts";
@source "./bar/**/*.ts";
@variant foo {}
@variant bar {}
@theme {}
/* Border compatibility CSS */
@layer base {}
/* Utilities */
@utility foo {}
@utility bar {}
/* Rest of your own CSS if any */
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Philipp Spiess <hello@philippspiess.com>
When migrating a project from Tailwind CSS v3 to Tailwind CSS v4, then
we started the migration process in the following order:
1. Migrate the JS/TS config file
2. Migrate the source files (found via the `content` option)
3. Migrate the CSS files
However, if you have a setup where you have multiple CSS root files
(e.g.: `frontend` and `admin` are separated), then that typically means
that you have an `@config` directive in your CSS files. These point to
the Tailwind CSS config file.
This PR changes the migration order to do the following:
1. Build a tree of all the CSS files
2. For each `@config` directive, migrate the JS/TS config file
3. For each JS/TS config file, migrate the source files
If a CSS file does not contain any `@config` directives, then we start
by filling in the `@config` directive with the default Tailwind CSS
config file (if found, or the one passed in). If no default config file
or passed in config file can be found, then we will error out (just like
we do now)
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <adam.wathan@gmail.com>
This PR makes sure the `migrateImport` codemod is properly registered so
that it runs as part of the upgrade process.
## Test plan
This PR adds a new `v3` playground with an `upgrade` script that you can
use to run the upgrade from the local package. When you add a
non-prefixed `@import` to the v3 example, the paths are now properly
updated with no errors logged:
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/85949bbb-756b-4ee2-8ac0-234fe1b2ca39
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <4323180+adamwathan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Philipp Spiess <hello@philippspiess.com>
This PR adds a codemod that ensures that the border styles from Tailwind CSS v3 work as expected once your project is migrated to Tailwind CSS v4.
In Tailwind CSS v3, the default border color is `colors.gray.200` and in Tailwind CSS v4 the default border color is `currentColor`.
Similarly in Tailwind CSS v3, DOM elements such as `input`, `select`, and `textarea` have a border width of `0px`, in Tailwind CSS v4, we don't change the border width of these elements and keep them as `1px`.
If your project happens to already use the same value for the default border color (`currentColor`) as we use in Tailwind CSS v4, then nothing happens. But this is very unlikely, so we will make sure that we honor your `borderColor.DEFAULT` value.
If you didn't change the default values in your `tailwind.config.js`, then we will inject compatibility CSS using the default Tailwind CSS v3 values to ensure the default color and width are applied correctly.
This PR migrates the `@variants` and `@responsive` directives.
In Tailwind CSS v2, these were used to generate certain variants of responsive variants for the give classes. In Tailwind CSS v3, these still worked but were implemented as a no-op such that these directives don't end up in your final CSS.
In Tailwind CSS v4, these don't exist at all anymore, so we can safely get rid of them by replacing them with their contents.
Input:
```css
@variants hover, focus {
.foo {
color: red;
}
}
@responsive {
.bar {
color: blue;
}
}
```
Output:
```css
.foo {
color: red;
}
.bar {
color: blue;
}
```
We have a migration that adds the `layer(…)` next to the `@import`
depending on the order of original values. For example:
```css
@import "tailwindcss/utilities":
@import "./foo.css":
@import "tailwindcss/components":
```
Will be turned into:
```css
@import "tailwindcss":
@import "./foo.css" layer(utilities):
```
Because it used to exist between `utilities` and `components`. Without
this it would be _after_ `components`.
This results in an issue if an import has (deeply) nested `@utility`
at-rules after migrations. This is because if this is generated:
```css
/* ./src/index.css */
@import "tailwindcss";
@import "./foo.css" layer(utilities);
/* ./src/foo.css */
@utility foo {
color: red;
}
```
Once we interpret this (and thus flatten it), the final CSS would look
like:
```css
@layer utilities {
@utility foo {
color: red;
}
}
```
This means that `@utility` is not top-level and an error would occur.
This fixes that by removing the `layer(…)` from the import if the
imported file (or any of its children) contains an `@utility`. This is
to ensure that once everything is imported and flattened, that all
`@utility` at-rules are top-level.
This PR is a follow up from https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/pull/14664 migrates all the `theme(…)` calls in your CSS to `var(…)` if we can.
In at-rules, like `@media` we can't use `var(…)` so we have to use the modern version of `theme(…)`.
In declarations, we can convert to `var(…)` unless there is a modifier used in the `theme(…)` function, then we can only convert to the new `theme(…)` syntax without dot notation.
Input:
```css
@media theme(spacing.4) {
.foo {
background-color: theme(colors.red.900);
color: theme(colors.red.900 / 75%); /* With spaces around the `/` */
border-color: theme(colors.red.200/75%); /* Without spaces around the `/` */
}
}
```
Output:
```css
@media theme(--spacing-4) {
/* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Use `theme(…)` since `var(…)` is invalid in this position*/
.foo {
background-color: var(--color-red-900); /* Converted to var(…) */
color: theme(--color-red-900 / 75%); /* Convert to modern theme(…) */
border-color: theme(--color-red-200 / 75%); /* Convert to modern theme(…) — pretty printed*/
}
}
```
This PR implements the first version of JS config file migration to CSS.
It is based on the most simple config setups we are using in the
Tailwind UI templates Commit, Primer, Radiant, and Studio.
The example we use in the integration test is a config that looks like
this:
```js
import { type Config } from 'tailwindcss'
import defaultTheme from 'tailwindcss/defaultTheme'
module.exports = {
darkMode: 'selector',
content: ['./src/**/*.{html,js}'],
theme: {
boxShadow: {
sm: '0 2px 6px rgb(15 23 42 / 0.08)',
},
colors: {
red: {
500: '#ef4444',
},
},
fontSize: {
xs: ['0.75rem', { lineHeight: '1rem' }],
sm: ['0.875rem', { lineHeight: '1.5rem' }],
base: ['1rem', { lineHeight: '2rem' }],
},
extend: {
colors: {
red: {
600: '#dc2626',
},
},
fontFamily: {
sans: 'Inter, system-ui, sans-serif',
display: ['Cabinet Grotesk', ...defaultTheme.fontFamily.sans],
},
borderRadius: {
'4xl': '2rem',
},
},
},
plugins: [],
} satisfies Config
```
As you can see, this file only has a `darkMode` selector, custom
`content` globs, a `theme` (with some theme keys being overwriting the
default theme and some others extending the defaults). Note that it does
not support `plugins` and/or `presets` yet.
In the case above, we will find the CSS file containing the existing
`@tailwind` directives and are migrating it to the following:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
@source './**/*.{html,js}';
@variant dark (&:where(.dark, .dark *));
@theme {
--box-shadow-*: initial;
--box-shadow-sm: 0 2px 6px rgb(15 23 42 / 0.08);
--color-*: initial;
--color-red-500: #ef4444;
--font-size-*: initial;
--font-size-xs: 0.75rem;
--font-size-xs--line-height: 1rem;
--font-size-sm: 0.875rem;
--font-size-sm--line-height: 1.5rem;
--font-size-base: 1rem;
--font-size-base--line-height: 2rem;
--color-red-600: #dc2626;
--font-family-sans: Inter, system-ui, sans-serif;
--font-family-display: Cabinet Grotesk, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji";
--border-radius-4xl: 2rem;
}
```
This replicates all features of the JS config so we can even delete the
existing JS config in this case.
---------
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
This PR injects a `@config "…"` in the CSS file if a JS based config has
been found.
We will try to inject the `@config` in a sensible place:
1. Above the very first `@theme`
2. If that doesn't work, below the last `@import`
3. If that doesn't work, at the top of the file (as a last resort)
When a stylesheet is imported with `@import “…” layer(utilities)` that
means that all classes in that stylesheet and any of its imported
stylesheets become candidates for `@utility` conversion.
Doing this correctly requires us to place `@utility` rules into separate
stylesheets (usually) and replicate the import tree without layers as
`@utility` MUST be root-level. If a file consists of only utilities we
won't create a separate file for it and instead place the `@utility`
rules in the same stylesheet.
Been doing a LOT of pairing with @RobinMalfait on this one but I think
this is finally ready to be looked at
---------
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
This PR adds a codemod that migrates the `@media screen(…)` to the
properly expanded `@media (…)` syntax.
```css
@media screen(md) {
.foo {
color: red;
}
}
```
Will be converted to:
```css
@media (width >= 48rem) {
.foo {
color: red;
}
}
```
If you happen to have custom screens (even complex ones), the screen
will be converted to a custom media query.
```css
@media screen(foo) {
.foo {
color: red;
}
}
```
With a custom `tailwind.config.js` file with a config like this:
```js
module.exports = {
// …
theme: {
screens: {
foo: { min: '100px', max: '123px' },
},
}
}
```
Then the codemod will convert it to:
```css
@media (123px >= width >= 100px) {
.foo {
color: red;
}
}
```
In order to properly migrate your Tailwind CSS v3 project to v4, we need
access to the JavaScript configuration object. This was previously only
required for template migrations, but in this PR we're making it so that
this is also a prerequisite of the CSS migrations. This is because some
migrations, like `@apply`, also need to convert candidates that to the
v4 syntax and we need the full config in order to properly validate
them.
In addition to requiring a JS config, we also now attempt to
automatically find the right configuration file inside the current
working directory. This is now matching the behavior of the Tailwind CSS
v3 CLI where it will find the config automatically if it's in the
current directory and called `tailwind.conf.js`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
This PR extracts all _candidate migrations_ from the existing _template
migrations_ and reuses these in the `@apply` CSS migration. Seems like
this _JustWorks✨_.
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Wathan <adam.wathan@gmail.com>
This PR adds a new migration that can migrate Tailwind CSS v3 style
prefixes into Tailwind CSS v4.
The migration is split into three separate pieces of work:
1. Firstly, we need to read the full JavaScript config to get the _old_
prefix option. This is necessary because in v4, we will not allow things
like custom-separators for the prefix. From this option we will then try
and compute a new prefix (in 90% of the cases this is going to just
remove the trailing `-` but it can also work in more complex cases).
2. Then we migrate all Candidates. The important thing here is that we
need to operate on the raw candidate string because by relying on
`parseCandidate` (which we do for all other migrations) would not work,
as the candidates are not valid in v4 syntax. More on that in a bit.
3. Lastly we also make sure to update the CSS config to include the new
prefix. This is done by prepending the prefix option like so:
```css
@import "tailwindcss" prefix(tw);
```
### Migrating candidates
The main difference between v3 prefixes and v4 prefixes is that in v3,
the prefix was _part of the utility_ where as in v4 it is _always in
front of the CSS class.
So, for example, this candidate in v3:
```
hover:-tw-mr-4
```
Would be converted to the following in v4:
```
tw:hover:-mr-4
```
Since the first example _won't parse as a valid Candidate in v4, as the
`tw-mr` utility does not exist, we have to operate on the raw candidate
string first. To do this I created a fork of the `parseCandidate`
function _without any validation of utilities or variants_. This is used
to identify part of the candidate that is the `base` and then ensuring
the `base` starts with the old prefix. We then remove this to create an
"unprefixed" candidate that we validate against a version of the
DesignSystem _with no prefixes configured_. If the variant is valid this
way, we can then print it again with the `DesignSystem` that has the new
prefix to get the migrated version.
Since we set up the `DesignSystem` to include the new prefix, we can
also be certain that migrations that happen afterwards would still
disqualify candidates that aren't valid according to the new prefix
policy. This does mean we need to have the prefix fixup be the first
step in our pipeline.
One interesting bit is that in v3, arbitrary properties did not require
prefixes where as in v4 they do. So the following candidate:
```
[color:red]
```
Will be converted to:
```
tw:[color:red]
```
This PR adds a codemod that ensures that some parts of your stylesheet
are wrapped in an `@layer`.
This is a follow-up PR of #14411, in that PR we migrate `@tailwind`
directives to imports.
As a quick summary, that will turn this:
```css
@tailwind base;
@tailwind components;
@tailwind utilities;
```
Into:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
```
But there are a few issues with that _if_ we have additional CSS on the
page. For example let's imagine we had this:
```css
@tailwind base;
body {
background-color: red;
}
@tailwind components;
.btn {}
@tailwind utilities;
```
This will now be turned into:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
body {
background-color: red;
}
.btn {}
```
But in v4 we use real layers, in v3 we used to replace the directive
with the result of that layer. This means that now the `body` and `.btn`
styles are in the incorrect spot.
To solve this, we have to wrap them in a layer. The `body` should go in
an `@layer base`, and the `.btn` should be in an `@layer components` to
make sure it's in the same spot as it was before.
That's what this PR does, the original input will now be turned into:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
@layer base {
body {
background-color: red;
}
}
@layer components {
.btn {
}
}
```
There are a few internal refactors going on as well, but those are less
important.
This PR adds CSS codemods for migrating existing `@layer utilities` to
`@utility` directives.
This PR has the ability to migrate the following cases:
---
The most basic case is when you want to migrate a simple class to a
utility directive.
Input:
```css
@layer utilities {
.foo {
color: red;
}
.bar {
color: blue;
}
}
```
Output:
```css
@utility foo {
color: red;
}
@utility bar {
color: blue;
}
```
You'll notice that the class `foo` will be used as the utility name, the
declarations (and the rest of the body of the rule) will become the body
of the `@utility` definition.
---
In v3, every class in a selector will become a utility. To correctly
migrate this to `@utility` directives, we have to register each class in
the selector and generate `n` utilities.
We can use nesting syntax, and replace the current class with `&` to
ensure that the final result behaves the same.
Input:
```css
@layer utilities {
.foo .bar .baz {
color: red;
}
}
```
Output:
```css
@utility foo {
& .bar .baz {
color: red;
}
}
@utility bar {
.foo & .baz {
color: red;
}
}
@utility .baz {
.foo .bar & {
color: red;
}
}
```
In this case, it could be that you know that some of them will never be
used as a utility (e.g.: `hover:bar`), but then you can safely remove
them.
---
Even classes inside of `:has(…)` will become a utility. The only
exception to the rule is that we don't do it for `:not(…)`.
Input:
```css
@layer utilities {
.foo .bar:not(.qux):has(.baz) {
display: none;
}
}
```
Output:
```css
@utility foo {
& .bar:not(.qux):has(.baz) {
display: none;
}
}
@utility bar {
.foo &:not(.qux):has(.baz) {
display: none;
}
}
@utility baz {
.foo .bar:not(.qux):has(&) {
display: none;
}
}
```
Notice that there is no `@utility qux` because it was used inside of
`:not(…)`.
---
When classes are nested inside at-rules, then these classes will also
become utilities. However, the `@utility <name>` will be at the top and
the at-rules will live inside of it. If there are multiple classes
inside a shared at-rule, then the at-rule will be duplicated for each
class.
Let's look at an example to make it more clear:
Input:
```css
@layer utilities {
@media (min-width: 640px) {
.foo {
color: red;
}
.bar {
color: blue;
}
@media (min-width: 1024px) {
.baz {
color: green;
}
@media (min-width: 1280px) {
.qux {
color: yellow;
}
}
}
}
}
```
Output:
```css
@utility foo {
@media (min-width: 640px) {
color: red;
}
}
@utility bar {
@media (min-width: 640px) {
color: blue;
}
}
@utility baz {
@media (min-width: 640px) {
@media (min-width: 1024px) {
color: green;
}
}
}
@utility qux {
@media (min-width: 640px) {
@media (min-width: 1024px) {
@media (min-width: 1280px) {
color: yellow;
}
}
}
}
```
---
When classes result in multiple `@utility` directives with the same
name, then the definitions will be merged together.
Input:
```css
@layer utilities {
.no-scrollbar::-webkit-scrollbar {
display: none;
}
.no-scrollbar {
-ms-overflow-style: none;
scrollbar-width: none;
}
}
```
Intermediate representation:
```css
@utility no-scrollbar {
&::-webkit-scrollbar {
display: none;
}
}
@utility no-scrollbar {
-ms-overflow-style: none;
scrollbar-width: none;
}
```
Output:
```css
@utility no-scrollbar {
&::-webkit-scrollbar {
display: none;
}
-ms-overflow-style: none;
scrollbar-width: none
}
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Jordan Pittman <jordan@cryptica.me>
This PR adds CSS codemods for migrating existing `@tailwind` directives
to the new alternatives.
This PR has the ability to migrate the following cases:
---
Typical default usage of `@tailwind` directives in v3.
Input:
```css
@tailwind base;
@tailwind components;
@tailwind utilities;
```
Output:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
```
---
Similar as above, but always using `@import` instead of `@import`
directly.
Input:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss/base';
@import 'tailwindcss/components';
@import 'tailwindcss/utilities';
```
Output:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
```
---
When you are _only_ using `@tailwind base`:
Input:
```css
@tailwind base;
```
Output:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss/theme' layer(theme);
@import 'tailwindcss/preflight' layer(base);
```
---
When you are _only_ using `@tailwind utilities`:
Input:
```css
@tailwind utilities;
```
Output:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss/utilities' layer(utilities);
```
---
If the default order changes (aka, `@tailwind utilities` was defined
_before_ `@tailwind base`), then an additional `@layer` will be added to
the top to re-define the default order.
Input:
```css
@tailwind utilities;
@tailwind base;
```
Output:
```css
@layer theme, components, utilities, base;
@import 'tailwindcss';
```
---
When you are _only_ using `@tailwind base; @tailwind utilities;`:
Input:
```css
@tailwind base;
@tailwind utilities;
```
Output:
```css
@import 'tailwindcss';
```
We currently don't have a concept of `@tailwind components` in v4, so if
you are not using `@tailwind components`, we can expand to the default
`@import 'tailwindcss';` instead of the individual imports.
---
`@tailwind screens` and `@tailwind variants` are not supported/necessary
in v4, so we can safely remove them.
Input:
```css
@tailwind screens;
@tailwind variants;
```
Output:
```css
```
This PR adds some initial tooling for codemods. We are currently only
interested in migrating CSS files, so we will be using PostCSS under the
hood to do this. This PR also implements the "migrate `@apply`" codemod
from #14412.
The usage will look like this:
```sh
npx @tailwindcss/upgrade
```
You can pass in CSS files to transform as arguments:
```sh
npx @tailwindcss/upgrade src/**/*.css
```
But, if none are provided, it will search for CSS files in the current
directory and its subdirectories.
```
≈ tailwindcss v4.0.0-alpha.24
│ No files provided. Searching for CSS files in the current
│ directory and its subdirectories…
│ Migration complete. Verify the changes and commit them to
│ your repository.
```
The tooling also requires the Git repository to be in a clean state.
This is a common convention to ensure that everything is undo-able. If
we detect that the git repository is dirty, we will abort the migration.
```
≈ tailwindcss v4.0.0-alpha.24
│ Git directory is not clean. Please stash or commit your
│ changes before migrating.
│ You may use the `--force` flag to override this safety
│ check.
```
---
This PR alsoo adds CSS codemods for migrating existing `@apply`
directives to the new version.
This PR has the ability to migrate the following cases:
---
In v4, the convention is to put the important modifier `!` at the end of
the utility class instead of right before it. This makes it easier to
reason about, especially when you are variants.
Input:
```css
.foo {
@apply !flex flex-col! hover:!items-start items-center;
}
```
Output:
```css
.foo {
@apply flex! flex-col! hover:items-start! items-center;
}
```
---
In v4 we don't support `!important` as a marker at the end of `@apply`
directives. Instead, you can append the `!` to each utility class to
make it `!important`.
Input:
```css
.foo {
@apply flex flex-col !important;
}
```
Output:
```css
.foo {
@apply flex! flex-col!;
}
```
