Should we store original `sources` array somewhere?

[phated]

I'm wondering if we should clone and store the original sources array on the file or sourceMap object so we can use it later in sourcemaps.write or gulp.dest when sourcesContent is missing and needs to be loaded.

If we don't stash the original sources array, we could just document that this needs to be used with caution if the end-user expects sourcesContent to be populated.

[phated]

@nmccready thoughts?

[nmccready]

Stashing is fine with me as things are already being stashed into a file for the sourceMap context. However maybe it should be

file.sourceMapping = { // some domain relevant to this project to **not** pollute file in only our domain context
   sourceMap,
   contents,
  sources
}

[phated]

I'm thinking file._sourceMapInternal to store our extra information.

[phated]

I'm just not sure if it should be stashed at all. It seems like people are using this feature in conjunction with includeContents: false because they don't get proper sources mapping.

[nmccready]

I'm thinking file._sourceMapInternal to store our extra information.

Good w/ me.

[nmccready]

I'm just not sure if it should be stashed at all. It seems like people are using this feature in conjunction with includeContents: false because they don't get proper sources mapping.

Well you can at least push the sources we did find do the options.mapSources if it exists. That way the user can have access to fix /fill it out.

[phated]

Well you can at least push the sources we did find do the options.mapSources if it exists. That way the user can have access to fix /fill it out.

This module is actually going to be replacing the mapSources option in sourcemaps.write because the module has become very bloated. It'll be exposed by the main module as sourcemaps.mapSources for users to put into their pipeline.