fix(core): unloading expanded envs

[Riron]

Current Behavior

When an env is expandable, it is not being unloaded before loading a task environment variables. Hence the initial value (from bin/nx.ts) is kept, and overwrites are not beings used when running the task.
This is because the unloadDotEnvFiles() function is comparing expanded variables with non expanded variables.

Expected Behavior

Every .env, .env.local and .local.env should be unloaded before loading the appropriate envs for a task.

Related Issue(s)

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nx-dev	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Dec 1, 2023 11:24am

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit 9cebc58. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution

---

🟥 Failed Commands
nx-cloud record -- nx format:check --base=9e322e8620d931ec4f4a7471f50132b99c467284 --head=9cebc58a2b115fb2b0ffe23b4c56142bc862beee

✅ Successfully ran 5 targets

• nx documentation --no-dte
• nx affected -t e2e-macos --parallel=1 --base=9e322e8620d931ec4f4a7471f50132b99c467284 --head=9cebc58a2b115fb2b0ffe23b4c56142bc862beee
• nx affected --target=e2e --base=a831e262dd66d3beed123191be2055447f1461af --head=9e322e8620d931ec4f4a7471f50132b99c467284 --parallel=1
• nx affected --targets=lint,test,build --base=a831e262dd66d3beed123191be2055447f1461af --head=9e322e8620d931ec4f4a7471f50132b99c467284 --parallel=3
• nx run-many -t check-imports check-commit check-lock-files check-codeowners documentation --parallel=1 --no-dte

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[Cammisuli]

Lets wait for #19401 to merge in, then we can add the same check in here with:

if (process.env.NX_EXPAND_ENV !== 'false') {
	/// expand logic
}

[Riron]

Lets wait for #19401 to merge in, then we can add the same check in here with:

if (process.env.NX_EXPAND_ENV !== 'false') {
	/// expand logic
}

If #19401 takes too long to get merged, should we consider merging this one first and instead adding the condition directly in #19401 ?
This is quite a pain point for us @Cammisuli :)

[xiongemi]

there is another pr #22585 that also tries to fix the same issue. i am going to close this one.

[github-actions]

This pull request has already been merged/closed. If you experience issues related to these changes, please open a new issue referencing this pull request.