Rolling Edsilv/utils into the uv

[Geoffsc]

#1380

Rolling Edsilv/utils into the uv:

• added Utils class
• updated references
• removed npm package
  - updated webpack config to compile Utils.js outside the bundle
  - updated compiled Utils.js file references

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
universalviewer	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 18, 2025 0:33am

[demiankatz]

Thanks, @Geoffsc, this seems to be working for me, though the webpack parts may go a little over my head. When I view the preview and inspect the browser console, I don't see a Utils.js getting downloaded, so I'm not sure where that piece fits into the puzzle....

I also tried disabling the download and share options in the footer panel just to confirm that the Bools library is getting exercised correctly. It didn't work for me, but it also doesn't work on the dev branch, so I'm wondering if there's some larger configuration problem at hand (or, equally likely, whether I'm just doing something wrong). That may be a separate rabbit hole for us to fall down....

[Geoffsc]

@demiankatz that's a great catch -- I attempted a small webpack config fix but it looks like this will require more effort and possibly multiple webpack configurations to fix, since this would require no longer bundling everything within UV.js. I wonder if it's worth having a dev call specifically for this with other folks who have webpack config experience. Possibly there's an easier fix that is eluding me at the moment!

[demiankatz]

Thanks, @Geoffsc! I think a related question (which I've already partially raised before) is: what is the purpose of mobile.html and production.html? I'm not sure how these files are used, and the hard-coded external dependencies in them concern me. If these are obsolete and can be removed, maybe that will simplify things; if they are needed, it would be good to understand why and how so that we can consider possible improvements.

[LanieOkorodudu]

Tested this and functionality wise it work as expected. Thanks @Geoffsc. I will leave it to you @demiankatz to decide if this can be merged or your suggestion above needs to be address first before merging. Thanks to both of you.

[Geoffsc]

Thanks @LanieOkorodudu! I'm not super comfortable merging this in its current state because the references in mobile.html and production.html are most likely incorrect due to the need for likely more comprehensive webpack config changes. I would probably recommend to decide one of two options:

1. If those html files are still being used, we will need a more comprehensive webpack config update
   or
2. If those html files aren't still being used, can we simply stop maintaining them?

[demiankatz]

This may be a good discussion topic for the next UV Community Call. @erinburnand, would you like to put it on the agenda? This also reminds me that I will be on vacation and expect to miss that call (currently scheduled for August 7). The show is welcome to go on without me, but if you want to delay to August 14, then I could make it.

[Geoffsc]

Per our conversation in the community call today I completely backed out the webpack config changes and the mobile.html and production.html reference changes and pushed that all to this PR. I will open a separate PR to handle removing those html files as from investigation it appears they are no longer being used.

Edit: here's the PR to remove the 2 html files

[demiankatz]

Thanks again, @Geoffsc -- now that #1524 is merged, do you mind merging the dev branch back into this PR so we can do one last test with all the pieces pulled together? (I expect it should be fine, but just want to play it safe!)

[Geoffsc]

Thanks again, @Geoffsc -- now that #1524 is merged, do you mind merging the dev branch back into this PR so we can do one last test with all the pieces pulled together? (I expect it should be fine, but just want to play it safe!)

Sure, done!

[demiankatz]

I think we're in good shape now. Thanks again, @Geoffsc!