[Icons] Add a Command to Publish Icons to public/ for Production Builds

[oleg-andreyev]

Description

Summary

I opted to remove /assets as part of a Docker build optimization, considering it to be frontend source code rather than necessary runtime content.

However, this caused unexpected issues: the symfony/ux-icon package broke parts of the website, as it depends on persisted icon files that were no longer available.

Proposal

Introduce a Symfony console command, for example:

bin/console ux:icon:publish

This command would:
• Copy all resolved icon files (those from cache or selected for use) into a target public/ directory
• Pull icons directly from vendor/ sources (if package has icon, such as easyadmin-bundle)

It could also optionally:
• Accept a custom target directory (defaulting to something like public/icons/)
• Respect a manifest or internal mapping of icon usage

Use Case
• During Docker image build, I exclude /assets to slim down the image
• I forgot that ux-icon expects icons to exist in that path
• The result: broken icons and runtime errors in production
• A publish step (like ux:icon:publish) would fix this cleanly and predictably

Why This Matters
• Promotes clear separation between build-time and runtime assets
• Supports use cases where frontend source files are not shipped with the application (vendor)

Example

No response

[GromNaN]

How do you exclude assets from the container image? Why don't you use a more granular rule that keeps the images that are used?

[Kocal]

I feel like you can ignore assets/ but not assets/icons/ from your Docker image 🤔

Anyway, even if this is technically possible, UX Icons are not really supposed to be used as standalone .svg files but through ux_icon() Twig functions, that uses assets/icons/ as source of truth.

If you really want your icons to be available in public/, you can configure ux_icons.icon_dir from %kernel.project_dir%/assets/icons to %kernel.project_dir%/public/icons (for example).

[oleg-andreyev]

How do you exclude assets from the container image? Why don't you use a more granular rule that keeps the images that are used?

Simply using .dockerignore. Eventually I've added more granular rule but the problem is that developers are not always aware about public/Resource/assets of the bundle.

[oleg-andreyev]

I feel like you can ignore assets/ but not assets/icons/ from your Docker image 🤔

Anyway, even if this is technically possible, UX Icons are not really supposed to be used as standalone .svg files but through ux_icon() Twig functions, that uses assets/icons/ as source of truth.

If you really want your icons to be available in public/, you can configure ux_icons.icon_dir from %kernel.project_dir%/assets/icons to %kernel.project_dir%/public/icons (for example).

Yes you can ignore assets/ but exclude assets/icons.

If we talk about application you own it's possible you can change path, but if it's a bundle (vendor) it's not possible but I think separating assets/ and public/ could be crucial because assets is source, public is result.

Anyway we are using easycorp/easyadmin-bundle and in fact they are using ux_icon

https://github.com/EasyCorp/EasyAdminBundle/blob/4.x/templates/components/Icon.html.twig

And icons are stored in https://github.com/EasyCorp/EasyAdminBundle/tree/4.x/assets/icons/

[smnandre]

Anyway we are using easycorp/easyadmin-bundle and in fact they are using ux_icon

Yes and no, they have an hybrid system. Flags icon, in the folder you mentioned after, are not rendered by ux icon.

separating assets/ and public/ could be crucial because assets is source

Well... yes! And this is the exact reason we do not get them from "public".

We follow strictly the official guidelines here:

UXIcons does use local svg files (sources) and render them in the HTML, removing or adding various attributes.

but if it's a bundle (vendor) it's not possible

Well.. not sure what we can do here....

As i see it, Icons has zero legitimity to go through all bundles in vendor, and expose the assets they decided... not to expose.

[smnandre]

but the problem is that developers are not always aware about public/Resource/assets of the bundle.

I don't see how this relates to your asset directory ? (may have missunderstod something here)

[oleg-andreyev]

Yes and no, they have an hybrid system. Flags icon, in the folder you mentioned after, are not rendered by ux icon.

I didn't mention "flag" icons, if I remember correctly it was internal:user

And this is the exact reason we do not get them from "public". UXIcons does use local svg files (sources) and render them in the HTML, removing or adding various attributes.

If we put it like this then I can agree that it makes sense, ux_icon reads from source and does some manipulation... at the same time I can imagine other developers that don't want to embed svg into html and use them as URL, so they will be forced to "copy" svg into public/

I don't see how this relates to your asset directory ? (may have missunderstod something here)

only in your project/app you can control where to save svg, not in bundle.

---

Probably not everyone are concerned about image size, and don't care (because it's an Ops stuff) so they don't bother with image size, taking this into account, I think I'll close this ticket but it still feels that "public" stuff even svg that are read/manipulated via ux_icon should be in public/