Add @tanstack/react-router plugin

[nickrttn]

This adds support for the file-based routing Vite/RsPack/RsBuild/Webpack plugin of @tanstack/react-router. The only reliable way I saw to parse the config files of those tools to generate the correct entries was through building an AST using TS.

I saw you've got some helpers for TS AST's in the codebase. Let me know if I can/need to use any of those.

[pkg-pr-new]

Open in Stackblitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/knip@856

commit: 8392b38

[webpro]

Thanks for the PR, @nickrttn!

This adds support for the file-based routing Vite/RsPack/RsBuild/Webpack plugin of @tanstack/react-router. The only reliable way I saw to parse the config files of those tools to generate the correct entries was through building an AST using TS.

I see what you're doing here, why it's needed, and I find it nice you gave it a shot and impressive you pulled it off. Now to me, the question is whether the complexity of this plugin warrants users not having to also configure Knip, like so:

{
  "production": ["src/path/to/routeTree.gen.ts"],       // either one
  "tanstack-router": {
    "production": ["src/path/to/routeTree.gen.ts"],     // of these is fine
  }
}

How often generatedRouteTree is modified is relevant, I have no idea. I think the value routesDirectory is less important to find as route files are picked up through src/main.ts anyway. Maybe depending on the src/main.tsx is even preferable here as that file contains actual usage, and we don't need to !negate ignore patterns, right?

So far, I think none of the plugins use or need ts at all, so currently I'm a bit on the fence with this one. And perhaps I'm missing something as well. WDYT? Eager to hear what your thoughts are on this one.

[nickrttn]

@webpro just wanted to let you know that this hasn't dropped off my radar, will get back to this as soon as I can!

[webpro]

That's great, no rush.