Issue 5535 - Replace our module system with webpack

Issue 5535 - Replace our module system with webpack

This change already landed, but then was reverted. The previous review is here https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29549786/

[kzar, 2017-10-12 11:57:28]

Patch Set 1

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574583/webpack_runner.js
File webpack_runner.js (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574583/webpack_runner.js#n...
webpack_runner.js:140: let relativeFilepath = path.relative("/", filepath);
These few lines are the only difference from the previous review (except for
being rebased e.g. the omitted package-lock.json) file. See
https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/5535 and
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29573821/ for more context.

[kzar, 2017-10-12 18:02:42]

Patch Set 2 : Avoid both mapping and bundling the same file

[Sebastian Noack, 2017-10-12 23:23:28]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574651/packagerChrome.py
File packagerChrome.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574651/packagerChrome.py#n...
packagerChrome.py:203: del files[to_ignore]
You can use files.pop(to_ignore, None), then you don't need to check whether the
file exists first. In which case would we get a filename here that doesn't
exist, anyway?

[kzar, 2017-10-13 07:25:21]

Patch Set 3 : Addressed nit

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574651/packagerChrome.py
File packagerChrome.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29574582/diff/29574651/packagerChrome.py#n...
packagerChrome.py:203: del files[to_ignore]
On 2017/10/12 23:23:28, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> You can use files.pop(to_ignore, None), then you don't need to check whether
the
> file exists first. In which case would we get a filename here that doesn't
> exist, anyway?

Yea we can do it that way too, Done.

[tlucas, 2017-10-13 13:40:02]

LGTM on the python part (and most js parts) - i assume you verified the absence
of redundant copies?

[kzar, 2017-10-13 13:44:17]

On 2017/10/13 13:40:02, tlucas wrote:
> i assume you verified the absence of redundant copies?

Yep, I checked that.

[Sebastian Noack, 2017-10-14 18:39:41]

LGTM