-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
trace-atomics-wait doesn't propagate to workers when env is set #53374
Comments
CC @theanarkh, I believe #53029 fixed this, right? |
Yes. But this flag |
Oh, also: it looks like the same thing is true of |
Yes. The fix ensures that You can try the following code with main branch( const { isMainThread, Worker } = require('worker_threads')
if (isMainThread) {
new Worker(__filename, { env: process.env })
} else {
throw new Error('a')
} it will print
Before
|
Awesome, thank you! |
Great! v22.3.0 will release soon (#53379) |
Version
20.8.1
Platform
Linux ushanka-housing 6.5.0-1020-oem #21-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Apr 3 14:54:32 UTC 2024 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Subsystem
trace-atomics-wait
What steps will reproduce the bug?
You can reproduce this by modifying one of the existent node tests.
If you edit
tests/parallel/test-trace-atomics-wait.js
in this repo withand then run
the test will fail
How often does it reproduce? Is there a required condition?
This should reproduce 100% of the time -- you don't need to do anything special
What is the expected behavior? Why is that the expected behavior?
According to https://nodejs.org/docs/latest-v20.x/api/worker_threads.html#new-workerfilename-options, the default value for a worker thread's env is process.env. Thus, not passing an environment and passing process.env as the environment should always produce the same behavior.
What do you see instead?
When running in its original form, the test produces two profile files, as intended. When passing {env: process.env} into the worker invocation, however, it only produces one profile file.
Additional information
This may be a dup of #52825, but given that it's a different flag, the fix might be slightly different, so I figured I should bring it to your attention
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: