process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding #22269

jasnell · 2018-08-11T16:58:32Z

Selectively allow process.binding() to fall-through to internalBinding()

~~This adds a selective deprecation. We might want to make this a PendingDeprecationWarning instead of a regular DeprecationWarning.~~

Refs: #22163

/cc @addaleax

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
commit message follows commit guidelines

Selectively deprecate `process.binding()` and fallthrough Refs: nodejs#22163

nodejs-github-bot · 2018-08-11T16:58:33Z

@jasnell build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/520/pipeline

jasnell · 2018-08-11T16:59:16Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16370/

devsnek

lgtm with DeprecationWarning

addaleax

Nice, thanks!

devsnek · 2018-08-11T23:08:54Z

actually @jasnell can you switch this to use SafeSet from internal/safe_globals? it's currently possible to hack into internalBinding by overriding Set.prototype methods.

maclover7 · 2018-08-12T00:19:03Z

CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/1503

maclover7

CITGM run has yargs looking okay, with docs added this looks good

maclover7 · 2018-08-12T00:20:30Z

lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js

+        if (!internalBindingWarned.has(name)) {
+          process.emitWarning(
+            `Use of process.binding('${name}') is deprecated.`,
+            'DeprecationWarning', 'DEP0111');


Can you add docs in doc/api/deprecations.md

also it should be DEP00XX

This is part of the existing DEP0111 process.binding deprecation. The documentation is already there. The odd but is that it's not a complete switch to a runtime deprecation.

devsnek · 2018-08-12T01:18:33Z

lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js

+    // Deprecated specific process.binding() modules, but not all, allow
+    // selective fallback to internalBinding for the deprecated ones.
+    const processBinding = process.binding;
+    const internalBindingWhitelist = new Set(['uv']);


please use SafeSet

jdalton

I'd like to hold this until an allow list, and those items in it, are more thoroughly digested. Many of the APIs that are deprecated have no user-land alternatives so leaves devs with nothing to fill the functionality gap. I think before a runtime error can be thrown we should have alternatives or guidance for the various APIs.

Update:

The move from process.binding to internalBinding is good. The mapping in process.binding to internalBinding, included in this PR, is good too (needed for a deprecation and migration path).

Update:

See additional comments, here and here, on migration and deprecation of recently removed bindings in master branch.

jasnell · 2018-08-12T05:29:24Z

@jdalton ... this is not adding a runtime error. It adds a runtime deprecation for only process.binding('uv') while fixing a regression that was added when migrating it to internalBinding('uv').

jdalton · 2018-08-12T05:38:07Z

this is not adding a runtime error. It adds a runtime deprecation for only process.binding('uv')

The var name is a bit confusing as it suggests an allow list but then it issues a warning (Deprecation warnings can throw).

jasnell · 2018-08-12T05:40:32Z

They throw only if --throw-deprecation is used, which is off by default.

Either way, we need to fix the process.binding('uv') regression... so perhaps I split the runtime deprecation specific part of this out to a separate PR but keep the rest as is?

maclover7 · 2018-08-12T23:03:24Z

@jasnell would it be possible to update per @devsnek's comment, and then to try and fast track this? Without a green CITGM (via this PR) we can't test the other binding removal PRs for regressions

jasnell · 2018-08-12T23:10:41Z

We can't fast track a semver-major with a red x.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T01:40:21Z

I'm a fan of removing reliance on process but the jump to remove instead of deprecate, for many of these, is skipping a bit ahead. This PR (tweaked) or something like it is needed for proper deprecation. This includes deprecations for the existing removed items:

performance
serdes
trace_events
uv

I'll update my ✖️ above with this note

devsnek · 2018-08-13T01:45:01Z

@jdalton we only need to deprecate the ones with ecosystem usage. (like no one is using process.binding('serdes') because its exposed by v8) @ChALkeR said they were going to be looking into getting those numbers at some point.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T02:01:28Z

@devsnek

we only need to deprecate the ones with ecosystem usage [...] were going to be looking into getting those numbers at some point.

Data is great for this!
It's also not horrible to leave them deprecated for a major release.

jasnell · 2018-08-13T02:30:44Z

Unblocking and landing this specific PR gives us a way of actually deprecating these things incrementally.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T02:38:13Z

@jasnell I 👍 the approach of your previous comment.

Remove the emitWarning bit
Allow all recently removed bindings through the allow-list (until we revisit with data)

jasnell · 2018-08-13T05:39:39Z

Allow all recently removed bindings

There is no need for all. trace_events and performance, for instance, are still experimental and still fall outside the normal semver rules.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T06:04:36Z

@jasnell

There is no need for all. trace_events and performance, for instance, are still experimental and still fall outside the normal semver rules.

Cool. You can address specifics in the follow-up commits in this PR.

jasnell · 2018-08-13T19:36:48Z

Removed the deprecation warning. Will handle that in a separate PR.

Did not add the additional modules into the whitelist, prefer that to be done as separate PRs based on need.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T19:55:06Z

Did not add the additional modules into the whitelist, prefer that to be done as separate PRs based on need.

This doesn't really satisfy the request. It's reasonable to add non-experimental bindings to the list until we can determine if they can safely be removed with data. I'm not a fan of a break-first-then-follow-up process. I dig the doc deprecate -> runtime warn -> then drop process.

jasnell · 2018-08-13T19:59:34Z

Please let me know which transitioned items you want to see landed... So far we've transitioned:

performance (experimental, outside semver)
serdes (internal, part of v8, which is explicitly outside semver)
trace_events (experimental, outside semver)
uv (added to the whitelist by this PR)

The other modules are handled by still open PRs that would need to be updated after this lands.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T20:04:46Z

I don't think we have data on usage yet so if the bindings aren't experimental they should be added to the allow-list until then (so serdes added to the allow list)

jasnell · 2018-08-13T20:07:56Z

serdes is experimental... specifically, it is experimental within an existing module that falls outside of normal server rules.

jdalton · 2018-08-13T22:06:03Z

Ah nice! Ok then!

jasnell · 2018-08-14T19:59:20Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16450/

jasnell · 2018-08-14T22:31:28Z

CI (with lints fixed): https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16453/
Grr... linux-one build bot failed: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linuxone/3951/

Selectively fallthrough `process.binding()` to `internalBinding()` Refs: #22163 PR-URL: #22269 Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me> Reviewed-By: John-David Dalton <john.david.dalton@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>

jasnell · 2018-08-15T00:07:52Z

Landed in 0257fd7

process: wrap process.binding for selective deprecation

b0ba27b

Selectively deprecate `process.binding()` and fallthrough Refs: nodejs#22163

jasnell mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2018

uv: move process.binding('uv') to internalBinding #22163

Closed

3 tasks

devsnek approved these changes Aug 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

addaleax approved these changes Aug 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Aug 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

jasnell added semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. labels Aug 12, 2018

maclover7 approved these changes Aug 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

devsnek suggested changes Aug 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

devsnek mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2018

url: move process.binding('url') to internalBinding #22204

Closed

2 tasks

jdalton suggested changes Aug 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

[Squash] address feedback

7e4af61

jasnell changed the title ~~process: wrap process.binding for selective deprecation~~ process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding Aug 13, 2018

jasnell removed the semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. label Aug 13, 2018

jasnell added dont-land-on-v6.x labels Aug 13, 2018

jasnell mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2018

v8: move process.binding('v8') to internalBinding #22288

Closed

2 tasks

devsnek approved these changes Aug 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR approved these changes Aug 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

jdalton approved these changes Aug 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

[Squash] lint

758fcf3

jasnell mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2018

http_parser: move process.binding('http_parser') to internalBinding #22329

Closed

3 tasks

jasnell closed this Aug 15, 2018

antsmartian mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2018

spawn_sync: move process.binding('spawn_sync') to internalBinding #22260

Closed

3 tasks

This was referenced Aug 15, 2018

CI failures: 20180815 nodejs/reliability#13

Closed

CI Failures: 20180817 nodejs/reliability#14

Closed

joyeecheung mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2018

lib: move internalBinding whitelisting into loaders.js #24088

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding #22269

process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding #22269

jasnell commented Aug 11, 2018 •

edited

Loading

nodejs-github-bot commented Aug 11, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 11, 2018

devsnek left a comment

addaleax left a comment

devsnek commented Aug 11, 2018

maclover7 commented Aug 12, 2018

maclover7 left a comment

maclover7 Aug 12, 2018

devsnek Aug 12, 2018

jasnell Aug 12, 2018

devsnek Aug 12, 2018

jasnell Aug 13, 2018

jdalton left a comment •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

maclover7 commented Aug 12, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

devsnek commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 14, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 15, 2018

process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding #22269

process: wrap process.binding for selective fallthrough to internalBinding #22269

Conversation

jasnell commented Aug 11, 2018 • edited Loading

Checklist

nodejs-github-bot commented Aug 11, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 11, 2018

devsnek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

devsnek commented Aug 11, 2018

maclover7 commented Aug 12, 2018

maclover7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maclover7 Aug 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

devsnek Aug 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Aug 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

devsnek Aug 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Aug 13, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jdalton left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 12, 2018 • edited Loading

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

maclover7 commented Aug 12, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 12, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 • edited Loading

devsnek commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 • edited Loading

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018 • edited Loading

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 14, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 14, 2018 • edited Loading

jasnell commented Aug 15, 2018

jasnell commented Aug 11, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jdalton left a comment •

edited

Loading

jdalton commented Aug 12, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jdalton commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Aug 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading