Tree Shaking Font Awesome Icons

profile picture

Spencer Miskoviak

August 11, 2019

Photo by Faye Cornish

Tree shaking: a word that at first sounds like another convoluted term used to describe some obscure technology or pattern. After rephrasing it as "dead code elimination," I find tree shaking to actually be a strong metaphor for what it describes.

Imagine building a large application and over time many packages are added as dependencies. Some of these packages provide utility methods, like the intersection method from lodash or underscore. Then there's more packages that provide some UI components like Evergreen UI, Semantic UI, React Bootstrap or one of the many others. And finally, maybe some icons provided by Font Awesome.

Relying on these packages saves a lot of time but if not monitored closely, the bundle size can start to explode resulting in shipping many megabytes of JavaScript and other assets to a user's browser. It not only takes a long time to download (especially on slower connections) but now the browser has to parse and compile all that code which can add signifigant time (especially on devices that may not have a lot of resources).

There are a few options. First, it's possible a user doesn't need all that code immediately. The bundle could be code split into smaller chunks so a user only has to download the code they need for the current page or feature they are interacting with. However, even with code splitting, if there are a lot of dependencies a user still has to download a lot of code on the initial load. But do they need all those dependencies? The simple answer is usually yes. The first page requires a utility method, and a UI component and an icon so all those dependencies need to be loaded. But the more complex and nuanced answer is usually no.

Across the whole application, maybe only 10% of the utility methods are used, 80% of the UI components and 20% of the icons. Each dependency is necessary but not all the utility methods, components and icons from those packages.

That means 90% of the utility methods, 20% of the UI components and 80% of the icon code that is being delivered to users is "dead code." Dead code is code that is included but never ran. Ideally, this dead code can be eliminated. It not only consumes more bandwidth and adds latency, it also adds times to decompressing, parsing, compiling and other processing the client has to do after it's been downloaded. This also means that during build time, it takes longer to minify, build sourcemaps, compress and any other sort of preprocessing that takes place.

Eliminating dead code is pretty straightforward in application code that you write. If a feature or component is unused, delete it. But how does this work with an external package? Isn't that all or nothing? It's either in package.json as a dependency or it's not?

🌳 Tree Shaking

As of version 2, webpack supports tree shaking. It requires the packages to be properly configured and built to allow tree shaking. Tree shaking is performed automatically by webpack in production mode. When it does work, it hopefully looks something like this.

GIF of an actual tree shaker

All of those utilities, components, icons and whatever else isn't used in the application bundle ("the tree") are entirely removed ("the falling almonds") so what is left is a much smaller and lighter application bundle ("the tree").

Although webpack is configured to perform tree shaking by default, it's often easy to "break" by using a package with the wrong configuration or not producing the right output or importing more than actually needed.

It can be challenging to know what is dead code and where to look. The first step is to understand what the application bundle looks like.

Visualizing the bundle

Let's look at a basic app that is built with webpack and has a few dependencies: React, lodash and Font Awesome.

Screenshot of a basic app

There's a simple heading, that renders a single Font Awesome icon (see the source for the basic example here). When building this example, the output from webpack includes these warnings:

WARNING in asset size limit: The following asset(s) exceed the recommended size limit (244 KiB).
This can impact web performance.
  main.js (819 KiB)

WARNING in entrypoint size limit: The following entrypoint(s) combined asset size exceeds the recommended limit (244 KiB). This can impact web performance.
  main (819 KiB)

WARNING in webpack performance recommendations:
You can limit the size of your bundles by using import() or require.ensure to lazy load some parts of your application.
For more info visit

What is it actually saying? By default, webpack will warn if any of the produced output assets exceed 244 Kilobytes in size. Here, the main.js output file was 819 Kilobytes. More than 3x the recommended size!

As the warnings suggest, code splitting could be used to split this single main.js bundle into multiple smaller chunks. This can help with interactivity by breaking up a single large bundle. However, that papers over the issue and doesn't solve the core problem. There likely is a ton of dead code that is never used in an app that is this simple (rendering a single icon within a heading). But where is the dead code? We could try digging through the webpack output line-by-line, or start inspecting the packages in node_modules but that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack if you don't know what exactly it is your looking for.

Fortunately, we don't have to do that because there's the webpack-bundle-analyzer plugin that visualizes the built bundle. It's an invaluable tool to understand the cost of including a package and determining the biggest opportunities.

To setup the webpack-bundle-analyzer, first install it: yarn add -D webpack-bundle-analyzer. Then, include it in the webpack configuration.

const BundleAnalyzerPlugin = require("webpack-bundle-analyzer")

module.exports = {
  // Other configuration ...
  plugins: [
    // Other plugins ...
    new BundleAnalyzerPlugin()

After running webpack, by default it should open in the browser with a visualization of the bundle. For the above example app, it will look something like the following.

Example of the webpack bundle analyzer
Example of the webpack bundle analyzer in a simple app.

At a closer look, the @fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons package accounts for 655 Kilobytes out of the total 818 Kilobytes. 80% of the output bundle is the icons!

Font Awesome solid icons

But in the screenshot of the basic app above there's only one icon. Now you might start questioning if the icons are really necessary with such a high cost and consider removing them entirely. What if there was a way to only include the icons that are actually being used?

Keep in mind that a development build often will produce different output than the production build. If looking to see exactly what will be produced in production make sure to run in production mode when using the bundle analyzer.

"Enabling" tree shaking with webpack

Enabling is in quotes here because all the options to enable tree shaking are on by default when working with webpack. However, as mentioned earlier it's very easy to "break" (disable) tree shaking and accidentally include a lot of dead code.

The first step is to ensure webpack is properly configured. The optimization.usedExports setting needs to be enabled.

module.exports = {
  // Other configuration ...
  optimization: {
    usedExports: true

Running this in development mode (mode: "development") with the example app will produce output with nearly 1000 comments that resemble something like this.

/* unused harmony export faAddressBook */
/* unused harmony export faAlignCenter */
/* unused harmony export ... */

So enabling usedExports added all these comments highlighting unused exports but they all still exist. It's the job of the minifier to actually remove these unused exports. Now the minifier needs to be configured and enabled.

Rather than configuring this, running webpack in production mode (mode: "production") will automatically enable usedExports and enable the minifier (which is one of the many reasons properly configuring the mode is important). But even with these changes all the icons are still being included?

The problem in this example is with how the Font Awesome library is being used.

Font Awesome

The following lines can be found looking at the source of the example app.

import { library } from "@fortawesome/fontawesome-svg-core";
import { fas } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";


This is using Font Awesome's SVG Core to add all the solid icons (fas) to the library. This means that any icon can be referenced as a string if using the React Font Awesome components.

<FontAwesomeIcon icon="coffee" />

As mentioned, tree shaking was actually enabled the entire time but it was "broken" by the way Font Awesome was setup. How is webpack supposed to determine that we're only using the "coffee" icon but none of the others when all of the fas icons are being imported? It can't.

There are a handful of options. First, the library.add can be updated to include only the icons we know will be used. The above library setup code would look like this. Now, only the "coffee" icon is included which brings the size of code from the @fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons package down to roughly 1 Kilobyte (over a 99% reduction).

import { library } from "@fortawesome/fontawesome-svg-core";
import { faCoffee } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";


Great! Problem solved. This might work great to start, but this can quickly suffer from the common over-including/under-including problem ever-present in frontend development.

What happens if we decide to add a new icon? This call now needs to be updated with one more icon and if it's forgotten that icon won't render (under-included). What if you remove the usage of the "coffee" icon but forget to remove it from the library (over-included). Are you sure it's not used anywhere else? This can quickly become a maintenance nightmare in a large codebase. It would be great to automatically include the exact icons used (not less, not more).

This is where webpack's automated tree shaking can really shine ✨. In order to leverage webpack, the usages need to be explicit so it can properly determine what is and isn't used. With this approach, the library.add setup needs to be removed entirely. Now, the icons need to be explicitly imported. The above FontAwesomeIcon example would become the following.

import { faCoffee } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";

<FontAwesomeIcon icon={faCoffee} />;

Now, only the icons that are used are being explicitly imported. If this icon is removed and it's not used anywhere else it will not longer be bundled. When new icons are imported, they'll automatically be included.

See the Font Awesome docs for more details on working with Font Awesome, tree shaking or deep importing if using a tool other than webpack.

See the source for all these examples in this repository.

How is this working?

There are often many pieces that need to come together for tree shaking to properly work. If only one of the steps is missing the dead code cannot be eliminated. These are some of the important steps to keep in mind:

  • webpack needs to be running in production mode (or have the right configuration).
  • Imports should be explicit and only use what's need (avoid import * or values that import unused things like fas)
  • The package likely needs sideEffects defined in the package.json and to be built with ES Modules. If you're a library author consider properly configuring any files that have sideEffects or also building ES Modules as part of the distribution with a tool like rollup.

The tree shaking documentation provides a great overview on the usage of sideEffects, usedExports and how the minifier (terser) come into play,

Other Considerations

Keep packages updated

For example, if using a package like react-bootstrap upgrading from version 0.32.1 to version 0.32.2 could have started tree shaking (assuming only explicit components were imported) because of the "sideEffects": false option being set. Another reason to keep packages up to date. Unfortunately, some packages are distributed in a way that does not allow tree shaking, such as @blueprintjs/icons (as of version 3.9.1) because all the icons are a single export.

Tooling for automating code modifications

In the above example, the original code referenced the icon by it's string name.

<FontAwesomeIcon icon="coffee" />

That code had to be converted to an explicit import to enable tree shaking.

import { faCoffee } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";

<FontAwesomeIcon icon={faCoffee} />;

At first glance, this seems fairly straightforward. However, if using Font Awesome in a larger codebase for some duration of time there likely are hundreds or thousands of usages. Updating each one individually is not only manual but also fairly error prone. This is where a tool like jscodeshift can become useful to automate these changes with a custom transform.


If working in an app that produces a large bundle, the first step to understanding where the problem is to use a tool like the webpack bundle analyzer to visualize the output. It can be an invaluable tool for surfacing opportunities for decreasing bundle size. Decreasing bundle size might mean removing a dependency altogether, swapping it out for a smaller replacement or exploring patterns like code splitting to minimize it's impact.

However, many times only pieces of that dependency are needed and the rest is "dead code" that can be eliminated. More times than not there's only one issue blocking tree shaking: a webpack misconfiguration, a package missing the sideEffects attribute, an outdated package, a single import that is importing everything or maybe a library that could be distributed with ES Modules. Whatever the solution is, tree shaking is a great tool for minimizing the overall footprint of an app.



Practical Abstract Syntax Trees

Learn the fundamentals of abstract syntax trees, what they are, how they work, and dive into several practical use cases of abstract syntax trees to maintain a JavaScript codebase.

Check out the course