Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: promisify clean #2357

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

imatlopez
Copy link
Contributor

@imatlopez imatlopez commented Mar 31, 2021

Checklist
  • npm install && npm test passes
  • tests are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Description of change

Promisifying the clean action such that it is similar to #2220 and #2225

In the effort of modernizing the code
lib/clean.js Outdated
}

module.exports = clean
module.exports = function (gyp, argv, callback) {
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null), callback)
Copy link
Contributor

@DeeDeeG DeeDeeG Apr 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, this PR looks good to me other than a small thing!

There is a gray line undefined output to the console with this PR.

Example output:

Before:

% /Users/[me]/node-gyp/bin/node-gyp.js clean
gyp info it worked if it ends with ok
gyp info using [email protected]
gyp info using [email protected] | darwin | x64
gyp info ok 

After:

% /Users/[me]/node-gyp/bin/node-gyp.js clean
gyp info it worked if it ends with ok
gyp info using [email protected]
gyp info using [email protected] | darwin | x64
undefined
gyp info ok 

I think this line I am commenting on is implicitly returning a variable that exists but has value undefined to the callback. Whereas before the callback was simply called with no argument.

It's the difference between console.log() and var a; console.log(a). One logs nothing, the other logs undefined.

My suggestion is to add parentheses to indicate calling the callback with no argument whatsoever if the Promise succeeded/was fulfilled. See code suggestion here:

Suggested change
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null), callback)
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null)(), callback)

(Of course I am not a maintainer here, but I wanted to review this since you were kind enough to review my PR.)

Copy link
Contributor

@DeeDeeG DeeDeeG Apr 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P.S. I admit I don't understand the need to bind the callback, and the output seems the same to me (i.e. there is no output) with or without using .bind().

(I am a somewhat beginner or intermediate level JS programmer, so I don't really understand bind that fully in any scenario. I only mean that the code appears to log the same output and be apparently functionally equivalent in my testing with or without using .bind() on the callback.)

If it's possible to omit the .bind() in the Promise succeeded/fulfilled case, then I would personally think that's better for making the code simpler and more readable.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@imatlopez imatlopez Apr 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thanks, made the onFulfilled function simply call callback no args. Goal of mine is to replace the callbacks with promises altogether as the backbone.

the bind is because we want to return any fulfilled return as a second arg never as the first. The issue is that promises always return something (even if it is undefined) which while it would still work without bind it would break at some point.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the explanation!

Copy link
Contributor

@DeeDeeG DeeDeeG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW (though I'm not a maintainer here) I approve because:

  • It's functionally equivalent
  • It uses Promises and modern const instead of callbacks and var

@lukekarrys lukekarrys mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2022
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants