Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-12T18:27:02Z

Change inside /lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js code from
process.binding('config') to
internalBinding('options).getOptions()

Changes are done for options:
--experimental-modules
--experimental-vm-modules
--experimental-worker

Checklist

[x ] make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes

devsnek · 2018-10-12T18:58:10Z

lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js

@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@
      setupQueueMicrotask();
    }

-    if (process.binding('config').experimentalWorker) {
+    if (internalBinding('options').getOptions('--experimental-worker')) {


can you factor out the internalBinding into a single call up top and also save the flag calls as variables to be used later?

something like

const { getOptions } = internalBinding('options'); const experimentalModules = getOptions('experimentalModules'); // ... if (experimentalModules) { // ...

Yes I will do that.
But one question. There is already some similar code in place, like line 114:

const options = internalBinding('options'); if (options.getOptions('--help')) { NativeModule.require('internal/print_help').print(process.stdout); return; }

Should I redo that part also and change code to use as mentioned:

const { getOptions } = internalBinding('options'); const experimentalModules = getOptions('experimentalModules'); // ... if (experimentalModules) { // ...

Thanks

As mentioned in my previous comment, will code like this (replacing line 114) be Ok:

const { getOptions } = internalBinding('options'); const helpOption = getOptions('--help'); const completionBashOption = getOptions('--completion-bash'); const experimentalModulesOption = getOptions('--experimental-modules'); const experimentalVMModulesOption = getOptions('--experimental-vm-modules'); const experimentalWorkerOption = getOptions('--experimental-worker');

@burgerboydaddy Yes, that definitely looks okay :)

gireeshpunathil

approving with @devsnek 's suggestion

thefourtheye

LGTM with @devsnek's suggestion.

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-17T02:06:28Z

Added suggested changes to the code

const { getOptions } = internalBinding('options');
    const helpOption = getOptions('--help');
    const completionBashOption = getOptions('--completion-bash');
    const experimentalModulesOption = getOptions('--experimental-modules');
    const experimentalVMModulesOption = getOptions('--experimental-vm-modules');
    const experimentalWorkerOption = getOptions('--experimental-worker');

Please review.

addaleax · 2018-10-17T05:33:55Z

lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js

@@ -183,7 +188,7 @@
    {
      // Install legacy getters on the `util` binding for typechecking.
      // TODO(addaleax): Turn into a full runtime deprecation.
-      const { pendingDeprecation } = process.binding('config');
+      const { pendingDeprecation } = internalBinding('options').getOptions();


@burgerboydaddy I think something went wrong with this one?

@addaleax initial request was to replace process.binding('config') to
internalBinding('options).getOptions(). Is there any reason why this line shouldn't be included?
If yes, I will restore this line to original one.
Please let me know what is your opinion.

thanks

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-19T03:43:29Z

Fixed issues.
returned process.binding('config'); in line 191:

-      const { pendingDeprecation } = internalBinding('options').getOptions();
+      const { pendingDeprecation } = process.binding('config');

addaleax · 2018-10-21T04:07:06Z

@burgerboydaddy Something seems to be odd here … github says there are about 200 commits in this PR, some of which are merge commits?

Do you think you could rebase this against master (not merge)?

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-21T05:06:57Z

@addaleax I'm even thinking to re-do complete request (new PR). Will that be better?

addaleax · 2018-10-21T05:09:35Z

@burgerboydaddy You can do that, but rebasing this one should be totally fine as well – whichever you prefer

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-21T05:45:05Z

@burgerboydaddy You can do that, but rebasing this one should be totally fine as well – whichever you prefer

@addaleax This are command that I just executed:

$ git fetch --all
$ git rebase origin/master

During rebase got error:

Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
No changes -- Patch already applied.
Applying: Updated code for Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588
Applying: Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
Patch failed at 0193 Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions
Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch

Resolve all conflicts manually, mark them as resolved with
"git add/rm <conflicted_files>", then run "git rebase --continue".
You can instead skip this commit: run "git rebase --skip".
To abort and get back to the state before "git rebase", run "git rebase --abort".

I fixed issue with file that I changed (node.js). After that did:

git add lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js
git rebase --continue

But after rebase --continue received response:

Applying: Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions
No changes - did you forget to use 'git add'?
If there is nothing left to stage, chances are that something else
already introduced the same changes; you might want to skip this patch.

What should I do?

addaleax · 2018-10-21T06:05:39Z

@burgerboydaddy That’s odd … it would typically mean that the changes from your commits have already happened upstream; but that’s clearly not the case, so I’m not sure what to do with that.

burgerboydaddy · 2018-10-21T14:51:12Z

@addaleax ok, how about to close this PR and create new one with proper code? I will mention this id (#23588) in my comments?

Trott · 2018-10-22T22:04:56Z

Rebased, addressed merge conflict, force pushed.

Trott · 2018-10-22T22:17:27Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18054/

Trott · 2018-10-23T03:40:01Z

Resume Build: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18063/

Trott · 2018-10-23T17:42:58Z

Resume Build: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18080/

Trott · 2018-10-24T03:57:07Z

Just landed a PR to fix the unreliable test that failed last CI run...

Resume Build CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18094/

PR-URL: nodejs#23588 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>

Trott · 2018-10-24T05:42:52Z

Landed in bb79e76.

Thanks for the contribution! 🎉

(If you're interested in other possible contributions to Node.js but don't have a good idea of where to start looking, some ideas are posted at https://www.nodetodo.org/next-steps/.)

PR-URL: #23588 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>

targos added the code-and-learn Issues related to the Code-and-Learn events and PRs submitted during the events. label Oct 12, 2018

jasnell approved these changes Oct 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

devsnek reviewed Oct 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Oct 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

thefourtheye approved these changes Oct 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

burgerboydaddy force-pushed the node-contrib1 branch from 678e0f4 to 7d85fb6 Compare October 17, 2018 01:43

addaleax reviewed Oct 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

trivikr approved these changes Oct 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

burgerboydaddy added 2 commits October 22, 2018 15:02

Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions

61b495a

Fixing found issues

7636912

Trott force-pushed the node-contrib1 branch from 5a49556 to 7636912 Compare October 22, 2018 22:04

Trott added 2 commits October 22, 2018 15:15

fixup! Fixing found issues

371d0bd

fixup! fixup! Fixing found issues

fa92ae4

Trott closed this Oct 24, 2018

targos mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2018

Release proposal: v11.1.0 #23922

Merged

MylesBorins added dont-land-on-v8.x labels Nov 26, 2018

codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2018

v10.13.1 proposal #24675

Closed

codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2018

v10.14.2 proposal #24727

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588

Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 12, 2018

devsnek Oct 12, 2018

burgerboydaddy Oct 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

burgerboydaddy Oct 14, 2018

addaleax Oct 16, 2018

gireeshpunathil left a comment

thefourtheye left a comment

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

addaleax Oct 17, 2018

burgerboydaddy Oct 18, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Trott commented Oct 23, 2018

Trott commented Oct 23, 2018

Trott commented Oct 24, 2018

Trott commented Oct 24, 2018

Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588

Migrating from process.binding('config') to getOptions() #23588

Conversation

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 12, 2018

Checklist

devsnek Oct 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

burgerboydaddy Oct 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

burgerboydaddy Oct 14, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax Oct 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gireeshpunathil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thefourtheye left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 17, 2018 • edited Loading

addaleax Oct 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

burgerboydaddy Oct 18, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 19, 2018 • edited Loading

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 21, 2018

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 21, 2018

Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Trott commented Oct 23, 2018

Trott commented Oct 23, 2018

Trott commented Oct 24, 2018

Trott commented Oct 24, 2018

burgerboydaddy Oct 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

burgerboydaddy commented Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading