import-in-the-middle causes exception when creating ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND message

[timfish]

Version

v22.1.0

Platform

All

Subsystem

module

What steps will reproduce the bug?

This was triggered by a combination of import-in-the-middle and tsx, but below is a minimal reproduction without either of those.

• import-in-the-middle sets parentURL to node build-ins (node:*).
• tsx tries to resolve files that do not exist

The

hook.mjs

export async function resolve(specifier, context, nextResolve) {
    specifier = 'file:///dost-not-exist.mjs';
    context.parentURL = 'node:util';
    return nextResolve(specifier, context);
}

index.mjs

import { register } from "node:module";

register('./hook.js',  import.meta.url);
await import("node:util");

Which gives the following error:

TypeError [ERR_INVALID_URL_SCHEME]: The URL must be of scheme file
    at fileURLToPath (node:internal/url:1491:11)
    at finalizeResolution (node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:265:42)
    at moduleResolve (node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:924:10)
    at defaultResolve (node:internal/modules/esm/resolve:1148:11)
    at nextResolve (node:internal/modules/esm/hooks:750:28)
    at resolve (data:application/javascript;base64,CiAgICBleHBvcnQgYXN5bmMgZnVuY3Rpb24gcmVzb2x2ZShzcGVjaWZpZXIsIGNvbnRleHQsIG5leHRSZXNvbHZlKSB7CiAgICAgIHNwZWNpZmllciA9ICdmaWxlOi8vL2Rvc3Qtbm90LWV4aXN0Lm1qcyc7CiAgICAgIGNvbnRleHQucGFyZW50VVJMID0gJ25vZGU6dXRpbCc7CiAgICAgIHJldHVybiBuZXh0UmVzb2x2ZShzcGVjaWZpZXIsIGNvbnRleHQpOwogICAgfQo=:5:14)
    at nextResolve (node:internal/modules/esm/hooks:750:28)
    at Hooks.resolve (node:internal/modules/esm/hooks:238:30)
    at MessagePort.handleMessage (node:internal/modules/esm/worker:199:24)
    at [nodejs.internal.kHybridDispatch] (node:internal/event_target:821:20) {
  code: 'ERR_INVALID_URL_SCHEME'
}

This is caused by this code where base is node:util:

node/lib/internal/modules/esm/resolve.js

Lines 264 to 265 in 87b87a8

	throw new ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND(
	path || resolved.pathname, base && fileURLToPath(base), resolved);

How often does it reproduce? Is there a required condition?

Every time

What is the expected behavior? Why is that the expected behavior?

This should throw a valid ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND error

What do you see instead?

It's throwing while creating the message

Additional information

This was made incredibly difficult to debug because you can't debug loader hooks!

Credit to @nwalters512 for the back and forth debugging with me!

[RedYetiDev]

Thanks for the issue, if you want to submit a patch, feel free to do so, if not, I'm sure a member of the team will be happy to assist

[RedYetiDev]

@nodejs/loaders correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this behavior also cause errors in the experimental HTTP import system?

[GeoffreyBooth]

This seems like expected behavior to me. It can't create a URL with that parent. It can't determine that the module doesn't exist if it can't first figure out what URL to try to retrieve.

[RedYetiDev]

Ack, didn't mean to add that label, I was looking to see if we had a "bug" label and I must've misclicked it

[nwalters512]

Node is already correctly determining that the file does or does not exist. As described above in the original issue, the error we're encountering actually occurs when Node tries to construct the ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND error to throw.

I agree that the situation that import-in-the-middle gets us into (parentURL === 'node:util') is a weird one, but Node is so close to handling it in a sensible way. For instance, if fileURLToPath(base) errored out while constructing the ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND error, it could instead use base verbatim.

[RedYetiDev]

This seems like expected behavior to me. It can't create a URL with that parent. It can't determine that the module doesn't exist if it can't first figure out what URL to try to retrieve.

Even so, IMO a more descriptive error may be helpful, rather than the one thrown by the conversion utility

node:util is not a valid <...>?

[timfish]

It can't determine that the module doesn't exist if it can't first figure out what URL to try to retrieve.

It has already determined that the module doesn't exist, it's just trying to construct the error message when it throws.

I can't see how this is expected behaviour. the code assumes base is a file URL and it is not.

If parentURL can only be a file URI and never a node: URI (or any other URI!) this should be enforced earlier in resolve.

Just be aware that enforcing this in resolve will break import-in-the-middle and everything that relies on it!

[GeoffreyBooth]

If parentURL can only be a file URI and never a node: URI (or any other URI!) this should be enforced earlier in resolve.

And if we did, what error would be thrown? Probably ERR_INVALID_URL_SCHEME, I’d think. In which case, why does it matter whether it’s thrown here or earlier?

[nwalters512]

Throwing earlier would ensure consistent behavior. Right now, everything happily works with a node:* parentURL provided that the file being resolved exists. I want Node to either always use the normal resolving behavior with parentURL = 'node:*', or always error out quickly and obviously.

[timfish]

Is node: even an invalid scheme for parentURL?

In which case, why does it matter whether it’s thrown here or earlier?

The current error doesn't even tell you which parameter was the wrong scheme. It's totally useless in terms of helping you fix the issue. Because there's no way to debug loader hooks, its difficult to track down.

There's a huge difference in terms of DX between an unintentional exception and one designed to guide users of an API.

The entire node codebase is full of places where guiding users in this way has been prioritised over just letting random exceptions happen anywhere.

[GeoffreyBooth]

Right now, everything happily works with a node:* parentURL provided that the file being resolved exists.

What do you mean? Resolving a specifier where the URL exists, regardless of parentURL, works even with a node:-scheme parentURL?

The current error doesn’t even tell you which parameter was the wrong scheme. It’s totally useless in terms of helping you fix the issue.

Sure, this could be improved by having the error message specifically refer to parentURL. Many functions have validation steps, like validateString calls; we could validate that parentURL is of file: scheme right off the bat at the top of the function so that it errors early (and informatively, and consistently). I think an error specific to the URL scheme is more correct than an ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND, though. The latter sounds like something was just missing from disk, whereas really we couldn’t even look for something on disk because we couldn’t parse the URL.

Because there’s no way to debug loader hooks, it makes it even more obscure.

It is definitely challenging to debug code that’s not on the main thread, but it’s not impossible. fs.writeFileSync(1, 'something') is equivalent to console.log('something').

[nwalters512]

What do you mean? Resolving a specifier where the URL exists, regardless of parentURL, works even with a node:-scheme parentURL?

This is exactly what I mean, yes. You can try it for yourself with the example in the original issue; replace file:///dost-not-exist.mjs with an absolute file URL pointing to a file that does exist. For instance, file:///Users/nathan/git/register-hook-playground/index.mjs is a file that exists on my machine, and running the reproduction example does not error with that path as the specifier. Even a slight modification to make the path refer to a file that does not exist, for instance file:///Users/nathan/git/register-hook-playground/indexx.mjs, produces an error.

The latter sounds like something was just missing from disk, whereas really we couldn’t even look for something on disk because we couldn’t parse the URL.

I think there's some confusion here. Again, the error that is currently thrown is not thrown because Node couldn't "look for something on disk". Node does look for the file, determines it does not exist, and is in the process of constructing an ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND error when it tries to parse the base URL for inclusion in the error, and that is what fails. The link to the Node source in the issue shows where this is happening:

node/lib/internal/modules/esm/resolve.js

Lines 264 to 265 in 87b87a8

	throw new ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND(
	path || resolved.pathname, base && fileURLToPath(base), resolved);

[timfish]

Throwing earlier would ensure consistent behavior

Throwing in resolve when parentURL is a Node URI would fundamentally break import-in-the-middle which has 4.5m weekly downloads and is relied on heavily in the ecosystem.

To fix this issue, it simply needs to not attempt converting base to a file path if it's not a file path when constructing the error message. It's a one line fix and I can submit a PR.

[GeoffreyBooth]

Throwing in resolve when parentURL is a Node URI would fundamentally break import-in-the-middle which has 4.5m weekly downloads and is relied on heavily in the ecosystem.

This isn’t really relevant. If we have a bug, and/or if they have a bug, then it needs to be fixed. The question is what the intended behavior of parentURL is. If our documentation says that it’s only used when the specifier is relative, and ignored otherwise, then the current behavior is fine and your one-line fix is fine. But if there’s somewhere where we document that parentURL needs to fulfill certain criteria, like it needs to be a file: URL and not some other type of URL or something completely different like an object, then we have a bug in that our actual behavior doesn’t match our intended behavior. If import-in-the-middle relies on this bug, well, then fixing the bug would be handled carefully, but it would still need to be fixed. But I think the former is more likely and a simple fix would be fine.

[nwalters512]

The documentation on https://nodejs.org/api/module.html#resolvespecifier-context-nextresolve doesn't say too much about parentURL:

The module importing this one, or undefined if this is the Node.js entry point

I could interpret this to mean that node: module specifiers should be allowed.

@timfish my hope is that you/we could pursue a fix to import-in-the-middle in parallel with this. My guess is that a whole lot of people will hit this very soon with your new version of the Sentry SDK, and I can't imagine that waiting for the Node fix to be released and waiting for all Sentry users to jump to the latest version of Node will work well.

[timfish]

Throwing in resolve when parentURL is a Node URI would fundamentally break import-in-the-middle which has 4.5m weekly downloads

This isn’t really relevant. If we have a bug, and/or if they have a bug, then it needs to be fixed. The question is what the intended behavior of parentURL is.

It's highly relevant.

@wesleytodd recently mentioned on Twitter that over the years Node has gone out of their way not to break the ecosystem where possible.

The documentation is ambiguous at best. Node has accepted these parentURLs for years through numerous LTS versions and changing this would be considered a breaking change by many.

After this amount of time the "intended behaviour" is irrelevant and the usage in the ecosystem trumps that. It's far less painful to update the docs to reflect the current usage rather than break longstanding packages because the intended behaviour wasn't documented fully in the first place.

[wesleytodd]

@wesleytodd recently mentioned on Twitter that over the years Node has gone out of their way not to break the ecosystem where possible.

I am not completely sure which topic is referenced here (probably a sign I need to stop checking twitter so much), but I think generally this references how CITGM is in place to help catch ecosystem breaking changes. That said, I am not sure the same goals apply between changing http in a way that breaks express and this which is still in an experimental status.

I don't know enough to make a call, and don't have the time availability to come up to speed on this at the moment. Sorry I cannot be more help.

[nwalters512]

I opened a PR to fix this in import-in-the-middle: nodejs/import-in-the-middle#76. While I'm still glad that Node is willing to consider a behavior change here, this will hopefully help folks in the meantime.