docs: define no longer follows the esbuild rules

[fi3ework]

Description

In Vite 2.x, config.define is passed to esbuild to perform the replacement.

vite/packages/vite/src/node/optimizer/index.ts

Lines 279 to 299 in d4886ea

	for (const key in config.define) {
	const value = config.define[key]
	define[key] = typeof value === 'string' ? value : JSON.stringify(value)
	}
	const start = performance.now()
	const result = await build({
	absWorkingDir: process.cwd(),
	entryPoints: Object.keys(flatIdDeps),
	bundle: true,
	format: 'esm',
	target: config.build.target || undefined,
	external: config.optimizeDeps?.exclude,
	logLevel: 'error',
	splitting: true,
	sourcemap: true,
	outdir: cacheDir,
	ignoreAnnotations: true,
	metafile: true,
	define,

For now, config.define is no longer passed to esbuild when performing optimization. The line this PR deleted is introduced in #5570. The reproduction that time works on Vite4 now.

Made a new demo to confirm https://stackblitz.com/edit/vite-nitjua?file=package-lock.json,vite.config.js&file=main.js

Additional context

We should bring this back after #11151 landed.

---

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the Pull Request Guidelines and follow the PR Title Convention.
• Check that there isn't already a PR that solves the problem the same way to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Provide a description in this PR that addresses what the PR is solving, or reference the issue that it solves (e.g. fixes #123).
• Ideally, include relevant tests that fail without this PR but pass with it.

[bluwy]

Looks like the limitation was indirectly removed in #8606. But I think if we're planning to go with #11151 one day (which I could revisit again), maybe it's good to pre-emptively mention this limitation so one that PR lands, it doesn't cause too much breaking changes to users.

[fi3ework]

Looks like the limitation was indirectly removed in #8606. But I think if we're planning to go with #11151 one day (which I could revisit again), maybe it's good to pre-emptively mention this limitation so one that PR lands, it doesn't cause too much breaking changes to users.

Make sense. 😜