misc(build): bundle with esbuild minification instead of terser

[connorjclark]

This brings bundle sizes down to slightly below what they were before #15239 (though #15257 surely helped).

Below are bundle size/build times w/ this PR:

---

Summary (comparing building with Rollup, to building with esbuild):

• yarn build-all went from 35.6s to 14.2s
• yarn build-devtools went from 9.5s to 3s
• yarn build-report went from 3.6s to 760ms
• total size of all JS in dist/ went from 22.8 MB to 21.7 MB

Previous numbers found here: #15239

esbuild minifiy:

hyperfine 'yarn build-all'
# Benchmark 1: yarn build-all
#   Time (mean ± σ):     14.205 s ±  0.535 s    [User: 26.779 s, System: 2.923 s]
#   Range (min … max):   13.671 s … 15.080 s    10 runs

wc -c dist/**/*.js | grep total
#  21730853 total

hyperfine 'yarn build-devtools'
# Benchmark 1: yarn build-devtools
#   Time (mean ± σ):      3.033 s ±  0.077 s    [User: 4.915 s, System: 0.405 s]
#   Range (min … max):    2.990 s …  3.250 s    10 runs
hyperfine 'yarn build-lr'
# Benchmark 1: yarn build-lr
#   Time (mean ± σ):      3.181 s ±  0.015 s    [User: 5.283 s, System: 0.463 s]
#   Range (min … max):    3.156 s …  3.208 s    10 runs
hyperfine 'yarn build-report'
# Benchmark 1: yarn build-report
#   Time (mean ± σ):     767.7 ms ±   6.7 ms    [User: 843.4 ms, System: 152.6 ms]
#   Range (min … max):   759.0 ms … 777.4 ms    10 runs

wc -c dist/lighthouse-dt-bundle.js
# 1819992 dist/lighthouse-dt-bundle.js
wc -c dist/lightrider/*
#  16976425 dist/lightrider/lighthouse-lr-bundle.js
#   190904 dist/lightrider/report-generator-bundle.js
#    22935 dist/lightrider/static-server.js
#  17190264 total
wc -c dist/report/*
#   173427 dist/report/bundle.esm.js
#   392055 dist/report/bundle.umd.js
#   529684 dist/report/flow.js
#   175018 dist/report/standalone.js
#  1270184 total

[adamraine]

What is the purpose of this?

[connorjclark]

Nothing, should be removed.

[adamraine]

nit: my preference would be for these to be standalone variables (e.g. truncateName). Is there a a a reason these are attached to a record object. It's kind confusing since names only contains the name of some functions.

[connorjclark]

Is there a a a reason these are attached to a record object.

The reason is just organization.