-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
lib: add process
to internal module wrapper
#17198
Conversation
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. Fixes: nodejs#6802
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have a curious sense of double deja vu: both of reviewing something like this before and of writing it myself...
@bnoordhuis I think we might have tried to add it to the userland module wrapper at some point, which broke existing code that contained statements like |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code change LGTM.
Should this be defensively marked semver-major?
Definitely needs a CITGM run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM - and to think I was going down the ENVIRONMENT_STRONG_PERSISTENT_PROPERTIES
rabbit hole. This is nice and clean.
This should be semver-major IMHO. |
@mscdex I don’t have a strong opinion personally, but would you mind giving a reason for that? What scenario could this break? |
@addaleax For people that may rely on |
@mscdex Changed to what? If the new value doesn’t have the properties as the initial |
Feel free to remove the label, but I generally like to be defensive about such changes... |
I think being defensive is the safest route, if citgm comes up without any problematic hits then I've no problem dropping the label when this lands. |
to be clear, @addaleax, I cannot think of a single reasonable case where this would break anyone, but there's no harm in being cautious. |
Landed in e8a26e7 |
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. PR-URL: #17198 Fixes: #6802 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Lance Ball <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Alexey Orlenko <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
@nodejs/tsc Can we unmake this It's blocking landing #17736 on v9.x |
@apapirovski Are you asking for removing the |
@targos Yes, I'm looking to remove the In addition to what I said above, if someone just modifies the |
+1 from me |
Removed the label for now, we can see if anybody has a differing opinion. |
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. PR-URL: nodejs#17198 Fixes: nodejs#6802 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Lance Ball <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Alexey Orlenko <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. Backport-PR-URL: #19006 PR-URL: #17198 Fixes: #6802 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Lance Ball <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Alexey Orlenko <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. Backport-PR-URL: #19006 PR-URL: #17198 Fixes: #6802 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Lance Ball <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Alexey Orlenko <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Share `process` through the module wrapper rather than relying on nobody messing with `global.process`. Backport-PR-URL: #19006 PR-URL: #17198 Fixes: #6802 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Lance Ball <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Alexey Orlenko <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
This does not land cleanly in edit: the backport to 9.x came with a number of other PRs (see #19006) it landed in 743cf33...f2dd17b likely we would want to backport all at once? |
Share
process
through the module wrapper rather than relyingon nobody messing with
global.process
.Fixes: #6802
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
lib (but in particular the REPL)