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

child_process: remove unreachable execSync() code #9209

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2016

Conversation

cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig commented Oct 20, 2016

Checklist
  • make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

child_process

Description of change

Code coverage showed that the execSync() variable inheritStderr was never set to the default value of true. This is because the default case is hit whenever normalizeExecArgs() returns an object without an options property. However, this can never be the case because normalizeExecArgs() unconditionally creates the options object. This commit removes the unreachable code.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the child_process Issues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem. label Oct 20, 2016
@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjihrig commented Oct 25, 2016

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4656/

The failures appear to be unrelated.

Code coverage showed that the execSync() variable inheritStderr
was never set to the default value of true. This is because
the default case is hit whenever normalizeExecArgs() returns an
object without an 'options' property. However, this can never
be the case because normalizeExecArgs() unconditionally creates
the options object. This commit removes the unreachable code.

PR-URL: nodejs#9209
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
@cjihrig cjihrig merged commit dd13d71 into nodejs:master Oct 25, 2016
@cjihrig cjihrig deleted the dead branch October 25, 2016 02:52
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2016
Code coverage showed that the execSync() variable inheritStderr
was never set to the default value of true. This is because
the default case is hit whenever normalizeExecArgs() returns an
object without an 'options' property. However, this can never
be the case because normalizeExecArgs() unconditionally creates
the options object. This commit removes the unreachable code.

PR-URL: #9209
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig should this be backported to v4 and v6?

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjihrig commented Nov 18, 2016

v6, yes. v4, no.

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2016
Code coverage showed that the execSync() variable inheritStderr
was never set to the default value of true. This is because
the default case is hit whenever normalizeExecArgs() returns an
object without an 'options' property. However, this can never
be the case because normalizeExecArgs() unconditionally creates
the options object. This commit removes the unreachable code.

PR-URL: #9209
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2016
Code coverage showed that the execSync() variable inheritStderr
was never set to the default value of true. This is because
the default case is hit whenever normalizeExecArgs() returns an
object without an 'options' property. However, this can never
be the case because normalizeExecArgs() unconditionally creates
the options object. This commit removes the unreachable code.

PR-URL: #9209
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
child_process Issues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants