Release 2.0

[dougwilson]

This is a tracking issue for release 2.0.

Try the latest beta with npm install [email protected]

Please keep feature requests in their own issues

If you want to make a comment on a particular change, please make the comment in the "Files changed" tab so comments are not lost during a rebase.

List of changes for release:

• Add basic support for returned, rejected Promises Catches errors from Promises / Async functions #47
• Add promise support to router.param Handle rejected promises from router.param #92
• Drop support for Node.js below 0.10
• Remove debug dependency
• Upgrade path-to-regexp to 3.x Updated to [email protected] #42
• Upgrade path-to-regexp to 8.x (path-to-regexp@^8.0.0 #117)

List of things to refactor:

• Use standard style

Testing this release

If you want to try out this release, you can install it with the following commands:

$ npm cache clean router
$ npm install pillarjs/router#2.0

Owners/collaborators: please do not merge this PR :)

[wesleytodd]

Once the other two pending PR's are done I will do the final one "Use standard style". Can we look at setting a date as a goal to get out 2.0 on this?

[edevil]

@dougwilson @wesleytodd Is there anything I can do to help move this forward?

[markstos]

I'm looking forward to the new release with promise support.

[xjamundx]

Would it be useful to explicitly test async functions?

I know there are many places where we test directly returning Promise.reject(). There are at least 2 scenarios I think that would be worth looking at:

For example all of these should be treated in the exact same way:

async function middleware1(req, res, next) {
   await Promise.reject(new Error("ok bye"));
}

async function middleware2(req, res, next) {
   throw new Error("ok bye");
}

function middleware3(req, res, next) {
   return Promise.reject(new Error("ok bye"));
}

function middleware4(req, res, next) {
   throw new Error("ok bye");
}

---

There are a few ways you can detect async function support if you want to do that, including some of the ones mentioned here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/46127053/496735

Happy to file a follow on PR with these tests as well.

[hypesystem]

Hey, if there's anything I can help with to move this forward, I would love to contribute, but don't really know how 😄 (been using express since 2014, pretty familiar with how it works, happy to write some code or contribute in any other way).

Is the checklist in the original description accurate, or is there more to do?

[wesleytodd]

expressjs/express@74beeac

This commit on express is breaking when I try to merge up to 4.19.0 on the 5.x branch. I don't see it associated with any PR or additional context. For now I am going to disable the test in the express side but wanted to flag it here so we could figure out the history and re-enable before landing this.

[wesleytodd]

expressjs/express@631ada0

This one is also looking to not be ported over and so failing the tests. Same as above, going to disable to get the branches synced up. Then I can port these here, publish a new router prerelease and then port it back to the other branch.

Just going to edit this now that there are more:

expressjs/express@708ac4c

[socket-security]

New and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
npm/[email protected]	None	0	15 kB	linusu
npm/[email protected]	filesystem, unsafe Transitive: environment, eval, network	+93	5.86 MB	ljharb
npm/[email protected]	filesystem Transitive: environment	+16	1.51 MB	mysticatea
npm/[email protected]	Transitive: environment, eval, filesystem, shell, unsafe	+108	11.6 MB	xjamundx
npm/[email protected]	None	0	28.7 kB	feross
npm/[email protected]	None	0	2.96 kB	then-bot
npm/[email protected]	None	0	30.9 kB	blakeembrey
npm/[email protected]	None	0	5.66 kB	feross

🚮 Removed packages: npm/[email protected]), npm/[email protected])

View full report↗︎