-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
feat: promisify clean #2357
feat: promisify clean #2357
Conversation
In the effort of modernizing the code
lib/clean.js
Outdated
} | ||
|
||
module.exports = clean | ||
module.exports = function (gyp, argv, callback) { | ||
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null), callback) |
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.
Hi, this PR looks good to me other than a small thing!
There is a gray line undefined
output to the console with this PR.
Example output:
Before:
% /Users/[me]/node-gyp/bin/node-gyp.js clean
gyp info it worked if it ends with ok
gyp info using node-gyp@7.1.2
gyp info using node@10.24.1 | darwin | x64
gyp info ok
After:
% /Users/[me]/node-gyp/bin/node-gyp.js clean
gyp info it worked if it ends with ok
gyp info using node-gyp@7.1.2
gyp info using node@10.24.1 | darwin | x64
undefined
gyp info ok
I think this line I am commenting on is implicitly returning a variable that exists but has value undefined
to the callback. Whereas before the callback was simply called with no argument.
It's the difference between console.log()
and var a; console.log(a)
. One logs nothing, the other logs undefined
.
My suggestion is to add parentheses to indicate calling the callback with no argument whatsoever if the Promise succeeded/was fulfilled. See code suggestion here:
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null), callback) | |
clean(gyp, argv).then(callback.bind(undefined, null)(), callback) |
(Of course I am not a maintainer here, but I wanted to review this since you were kind enough to review my PR.)
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.
P.S. I admit I don't understand the need to bind
the callback, and the output seems the same to me (i.e. there is no output) with or without using .bind()
.
(I am a somewhat beginner or intermediate level JS programmer, so I don't really understand bind
that fully in any scenario. I only mean that the code appears to log the same output and be apparently functionally equivalent in my testing with or without using .bind()
on the callback.)
If it's possible to omit the .bind()
in the Promise succeeded/fulfilled case, then I would personally think that's better for making the code simpler and more readable.
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.
thanks, made the onFulfilled function simply call callback no args. Goal of mine is to replace the callbacks with promises altogether as the backbone.
the bind is because we want to return any fulfilled return as a second arg never as the first. The issue is that promises always return something (even if it is undefined) which while it would still work without bind
it would break at some point.
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.
Thanks for the explanation!
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.
FWIW (though I'm not a maintainer here) I approve because:
- It's functionally equivalent
- It uses Promises and modern
const
instead of callbacks andvar
Checklist
npm install && npm test
passesDescription of change
Promisifying the clean action such that it is similar to #2220 and #2225