Webpack VS Sprockets

Since the release of Rails 6, Webpack is the default JavaScript bundler for new Rails apps. We all struggled at first coming from a Sprockets background, and more often than not, we, as Rails developers, tried to avoid making JavaScript changes so we wouldn’t have to deal with it.

In this post, I’ll try to explain some basic concepts and ideas from the point of view of a Rails developer used to working with the Assets Pipeline, comparing how to do the same thing on both.


There are more solutions for this like Rollup, Parcel or Browserify. I won’t cover those here.

Directories Structure

When using Sprockets, you typically have all the assets at app/assets, and, inside that folder, you have stylesheet, images, javascript, etc. You usually have all your assets in the root of each of those folders or inside nested folders too.

When using Webpack, in a standard Rails app you have all the JavaScript inside app/javascript. This is the default, but if you plan to manage all your assets using Webpack (CSS, images, etc) or you simply want a different folder, you can change it to something like app/webpack in config/webpacker.yml:

  source_path: app/webpack

You usually have all your assets inside app/javascript or app/javascript/src and only the main JavaScript files inside app/javascript/packs.

You could also have app/javascript/css or app/javascript/images for example to organize other asset types. Then it would be a good idea to rename the source_path.


When you start using Webpacker, one of the first things you need to do is to replace the javascript_include_tag with javascript_pack_tag. Same applies for the css using stylesheet_pack_tag instead of stylesheet_link_tag.

Note that, by default, Rails will use Sprockets for the CSS and Webpack for the JS, so you will have stylesheet_link_tag and javascript_pack_tag in your application layout, but you can still use the other helpers if needed

Similar to javascript_include_tag that links to a file compiled at public/assets/, javascript_pack_tag will link to a file compiled at public/packs. You can also configure that in config/webpacker.yml:

  public_root_path: public
  public_output_path: packs

Multiple Packs

When using Sprockets, you have to tell Rails which JavaScript and CSS assets will be created from all the sources that are available (defaults are application.css, application.js and all other asset file types). You do that with an initializer (for example, at config/initializers/assets.rb):

# config/initializers/assets.rb

Rails.application.config.assets.precompile += %w( admin.js admin.css )

To do the same with Webpack, you don’t need to change a configuration. All the files at app/javascript/packs (AKA “the entry points”) will be created (AKA “emitted”). You can change where your packs are located too in config/webpacker.yml:

  source_entry_path: packs

By default, you have an application.js file there, but you can add an admin.js as well. For example:

// app/javascript/packs/admin.js

// here you can add all your code or require other files

Now, when Webpack compiles your assets, it will emit application.js and admin.js.

You can also create .css (or .scss if you prefer) files to be emitted:

// app/javascript/packs/admin.scss

@import some_sass_module // you can use SASS imports

And now Webpack will also process, compile and emit an admin.css file.

There’s a caveat when using a CSS pack, I’ll comment on that later when I talk about images.

Note that ALL the files under /packs will be emitted. You don’t want to put all your source files there, only the ones you are going to access directly! All your source files should be in the parent folder or in a sibling folder.

Node Modules

Rails uses YARN opens a new window by default to handle Node packages. All packages are downloaded in a node_modules folder in the root of your project.

Remember to add that folder to the .gitignore file, you don’t want to push all these files into your repo.

These packages can be used by both Sprockets and Webpack, so you can use the same package to provide some CSS for your stylesheets using Sprockets and some JavaScript for your scripts using Webpack.

If you want Sprockets to look for files inside that folder, you need to add that to the assets paths list:

# config/initializers/assets.rb

Rails.application.config.assets.paths << Rails.root.join('node_modules')

Webpack will look for files there by default, so no change needed, but if you want to tell Webpack to check other folders too you can add paths to the additional_paths configuration at config/webpacker.yml.

Now, when you require or import in a JavaScript file, @import in a SCSS file or // require in a CSS file, the compilers will look for a folder with the name we used there on any asset path. When we see a line like this:


It is looking for a module in node_modules/@rails/ujs, and it checks the package.json file inside that folder to know what to load. You can also reference specific files instead of a module, for example, the @rails/ujs package’s package.json file has this line:

  "main": "lib/assets/compiled/rails-ujs.js",

That is the file that will be used if referencing @rails/ujs, but you could also be specific and do:


With the same result.

This is really helpful when you want to customize what you import to reduce the size of your bundles.

Global JavaScript Functions

Let’s say you have this JavaScript file:

function initMap(mapId) {
  // initializes a map plugin

Let’s say you want this function to be available from anywhere, because you call that during the page load but also from some AJAX response.

When using Sprockets, all JavaScript is concatenated in one plain file and everything runs in the global scope. So you can call initMap from anywhere by default. This is really handy… BUT! there is a problem: it bloats the global scope and you can have different modules using the same function causing name collision.

When using Webpack, each script is isolated so nothing changes the global scope by default and only exports the things you tell it to export (it could be a class, a function, an object, etc…, we can export multiple things too). This solves the problem of global scope contamination, but you won’t be able to access the initMap function from anywhere since it’s not exposed globally.

To do that, you have to be explicit when defining the function in your module:

global.initMap = function(mapId) {
  // initializes a map plugin

// or

const initMap = mapId => {
  // initializes a map plugin
global.initMap = initMap;


Many projects depend on jQuery and need the $ function available everywhere. The easiest way to handle this is to tell Webpack to expose the $ and the jQuery functions globally. To do that, you need to add a plugin setting:

// config/webpack/environment.js
const { environment } = require("@rails/webpacker");

const webpack = require("webpack");
  new webpack.ProvidePlugin({
    $: "jquery/src/jquery",
    jQuery: "jquery/src/jquery"

module.exports = environment;


Webpacker comes with a handy bin file you can run to make your web auto-reload when you change any asset, so you don’t have to refresh manually after each change you do. You can run rails s in one terminal and bin/webpack-dev-server in another terminal, enter localhost:3000 and you can change any asset and your page will be updated with no need of F5. This is really handy when you need to do heavy assets work.

Non-JavaScript Assets With Webpacker


When using Webpacker, while you can have CSS entry points at app/javascript/packs, it can create some problems and sometimes you will see something like this inside a JavaScript file instead:

import "my_file.css";

or even stranger-looking:

import "my_image.png";

What’s happening here is that Webpacker can extract different types of assets referenced by your JavaScript packs and emit those as separated files! If you have an application.js file that imports some CSS, it will emit an application.css file with the content of that CSS. You have to be sure you have the right configuration:

// config/webpacker.yml

production: extract_css: true;

You can set that as false during development or testing, but it’s needed for production. I’d recommend you at least try it as true during development to verify that it will create the right files for production.


If you open your application.js file, you will find this comment:

// packs/application.js

// Uncomment to copy all static images under ../images to the output folder and reference
// them with the image_pack_tag helper in views (e.g <%= image_pack_tag 'rails.png' %>)
// or the `imagePath` JavaScript helper below.
// const images = require.context('../images', true)
// const imagePath = (name) => images(name, true)

You can tell Webpack to compile and emit all the files at ../images by un-commenting the first line:

// packs/application.js

require.context("../images", true);

Now you can put all your images in app/javascript/images and Webpack will move them to public/packs/media/images during compilation. You can check at config/webpacker.yml which static_assets_extensions it supports (many image and font types by default). You can add more extensions there to support more file types.

You can reference assets from your erb templates using the asset_pack_path/url and image_pack_path/url helper methods provided by Webpacker.

Note that for this configuration to work you must NOT have an application.css pack! There is an open issue opens a new window in Webpacker’s repo.

Wrapping up

A simple basic configuration to handle JS, CSS, Images and Fonts using webpacker could be:

  |_ javascript
    |_ packs
      |_ application.js
    |_ src
      |_ some_javascript.js
    |_ stylesheets
      |_ application.css
    |_ images
      |_ logo.jpg
      |_ test.png
    |_ fonts
      |_ myfont.ttf

And your application.js would look like this:

// packs/application.js

import "../stylesheets/application.css";
require.context("../images", true);
require.context("../fonts", true);

// and now your JavaScript ...
import SomeModule from "../src/some_javascript";

You can rename the source_path to assets and use javascript instead of src and it will look pretty similar to the Assets Pipeline!

Pros And Cons

So, what should you use? Sprockets? Webpack? Both? As always, the answer is… it depends. By default, since version 6, Rails uses both: Webpack for JavaScript, Sprocket for any other asset. According to your needs, you may want to use one or the other or change which assets you handle with each of them. You can even handle assets of the same type using both solutions at the same time!

Let’s do a quick comparison:

Sprockets Pros

  • As Rails developers, we are really used to how the asset pipeline works and many Rails specific guides may reference this instead of Webpacker (mainly older guides before the Rails 6 release)
  • You can use assets from gems AND from node_modules

Sprockets Cons

  • There are no plans for make it work with modern JavaScript features (According to DHH opens a new window )
  • Bloats the JavaScript global scope
  • It’s not the default for JavaScript, so new guides will be focused on Webpack

Webpack Pros

  • Gives you access to all modern JavaScript features
  • Gives you access to a lot of plugins to handle the compilation process
  • Easy setup for JavaScript frameworks (like React, Vue or Stimulus) when creating Rails apps
  • Does not populate the global scope unless we are explicit
  • Includes an auto-reloader during development
  • There are many resources for Webpack in general (not specific to Rails) that also apply

Webpack Cons

  • You can (and should) import CSS files (and other asset types) inside JavaScript files, which may be confusing at first
  • From my experience, you can’t read assets from gems (documentation states that you can use assets from Rails Engines, but I was not able to set that up)


After this comparison, I think the general approach of using Webpack for JavaScript files and Sprockets for the rest is the way to go for now. It enables JavaScript modern features using Webpack but leaves the other assets to be handled by Sprockets so the learning curve is not as pronounced for developers used to the Asset Pipeline. However, for developers used to using Webpack, it may be an easier alternative to use Webpack for the handling of all assets.

Some resources to keep watching and reading: