Error while running pnpm run schema with node v21

[bczhc]

Error:

❯ pnpm run schema

> @libreservice/my-rime@0.10.4 schema /mnt/4T/coll-last/open-source/my_rime
> node --loader ts-node/esm scripts/install_schemas.ts

(node:206029) ExperimentalWarning: `--experimental-loader` may be removed in the future; instead use `register()`:
--import 'data:text/javascript,import { register } from "node:module"; import { pathToFileURL } from "node:url"; register("ts-node/esm", pathToFileURL("./"));'
(Use `node --trace-warnings ...` to show where the warning was created)

node:internal/process/esm_loader:34
      internalBinding('errors').triggerUncaughtException(
                                ^
[Object: null prototype] {
  [Symbol(nodejs.util.inspect.custom)]: [Function: [nodejs.util.inspect.custom]]
}

Node.js v21.2.0
 ELIFECYCLE  Command failed with exit code 1.

I did some quick searching and found:

• Node 20: errors with util.inspect.custom raised in loader thread not serialized/deserialized correctly nodejs/node#48207
• Node 20: errors produced by reportTSError are not serialised correctly when using ESM loader TypeStrong/ts-node#2026

A fix for me is:

commit 1c376ce5e300f144b049857feed111037a69bc63
Author: Zhai Can <bczhc0@126.com>
Date:   Thu Nov 23 21:57:13 2023 +0800

    fix `pnpm run schemas` error with node 20+

diff --git a/tsconfig.json b/tsconfig.json
index a640dc7..5644228 100644
--- a/tsconfig.json
+++ b/tsconfig.json
@@ -14,5 +14,10 @@
     "noEmit": true
   },
   "include": ["src/**/*.ts", "src/**/*.d.ts", "src/**/*.tsx", "src/**/*.vue"],
-  "references": [{ "path": "./tsconfig.node.json" }]
+  "references": [{ "path": "./tsconfig.node.json" }],
+  "ts-node": {
+      "experimentalSpecifierResolution": "node",
+      "transpileOnly": true,
+      "esm": true
+  }
 }

I'm not sure if this can be considered as a proper fix, so just filed an issue instead of a PR :).

[eagleoflqj]

Tested locally with the latest node 21.4.0 and pnpm 8.11.0, there is no error.
Maybe upstream has fixed the issue.

[bczhc]

OK then. I have no time to test it locally recently, but the PR has passed. This can be closed, and if there's something wrong again I will submit the follow-up of the issue.