-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.9k
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
[v12.x backport] async_hooks: add executionAsyncResource #32131
[v12.x backport] async_hooks: add executionAsyncResource #32131
Conversation
It looks like CI failed due to timeout in compilation phase. I've just tried a fresh compilation and a test run on this branch and they went fine on my machine. Could someone restart Travis build? |
Could you please add links to the originial PRs in the PR description? |
Sure thing. I've updated the description. |
Failed tests look weird and unrelated with this PR. Are there known flaky tests in |
As far as I can see, failed tests (at least, some of them) are related with #32080. Namely, this regular expression has to be fixed now, as Should I cherry pick that PR as well or it's better to create a separate PR to backport those changes? Also, it seems that |
I've seen the test-dgram errors on other PRs against the master branch. |
I don't think #31936 has landed on |
I've created #32146 to deal with test failures discussed above. We have to wait for it to land first before we get a green build here. |
21223ff
to
838907d
Compare
I just did a rebase, as #32146 was merged today. Hopefully, CI builds should be able to pass successfully now. Could someone trigger a CI build on this one? |
838907d
to
96b06a9
Compare
Rebased and resolved a minor conflict (appeared after 0b3bee5). |
I'm seeing the following error in
Looks like the issue is not related with this PR and located in Update. Looks like the problem is the following. #31256 was backported, but it included this this change which depends on #31006 (and this PR wasn't backported). I've created #32282 to deal with that. |
2047cca
to
0606e1d
Compare
96b06a9
to
8d6f6fe
Compare
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
Thanks for running a CITGM build. The changes in this PR may introduce some regressions, indeed. I can see 20 failures in this build, but I'm not sure if they're related with this PR or they're false positives. I can see that other CITGM builds also fail with similar (if not the same) errors. Update. I went thought failed tests output and didn't find anything suspicious: they seem to be failing because of some timeouts and flaky tests. |
@Trott @MylesBorins could you take a look as well? |
CITGM results look good to me. |
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
a01fb4a
to
e5dc2fb
Compare
63a03d2
to
d577190
Compare
8d6f6fe
to
d8de7e5
Compare
Rebased to the latest |
Not sure if backporting to LTS should be delayed a little as breaking API changes are in pipeline (#31950). |
Yep. That change should not impact this. Also, I would argue to not consider it breaking as ALS is experimental and still very new. I think we should consider those changes not major and therefore backportable. |
yes, sorry. mixed this up. |
Remove the need for the destroy hook in the basic APM case. Co-authored-by: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> PR-URL: nodejs#30959 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Vladimir de Turckheim <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Ensure that resource returned by executionAsyncResource() in before and after hook matches that resource causing this before/after calls. PR-URL: nodejs#31821 Refs: nodejs#30959 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Vladimir de Turckheim <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs#31944 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
This was an oversight in 9fdb6e6. Fixing this is necessary to make `executionAsyncResource()` work as expected. Refs: nodejs#30959 Fixes: nodejs#32060 PR-URL: nodejs#32063 Reviewed-By: Vladimir de Turckheim <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
d8de7e5
to
fc50e29
Compare
Landed on my release preparation branch: https://github.com/targos/node/commits/prepare-minor |
Backports
executionAsyncResource
into v12.x. I've cherry picked the following commits/PRs:Had to resolve only a single (minor) conflict in
lib/internal/async_hooks.js
->emitBeforeScript
.cc @Qard @vdeturckheim @addaleax @Flarna
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes