-
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
test: add test for Module._stat
#44713
test: add test for Module._stat
#44713
Conversation
18df730
to
dfa0e90
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
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.
Maybe add mustCall
s to ensure it’s indeed being called?
@aduh95 aren't |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
dfa0e90
to
b814716
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
fs.readFileSync = function readFileSync(pathArgument, options) { | ||
if (!pathArgument.startsWith(process.execPath)) { | ||
return originalReadFileSync.apply(this, arguments); | ||
} | ||
if (pathArgument === vfsFile) { | ||
return "module.exports = { x: 'y' };"; | ||
} | ||
throw new Error(); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
fs.realpathSync = function realpathSync(pathArgument, options) { | ||
return pathArgument; | ||
}; |
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.
Wait, that's not a use case we want to support, mutating fs
should not have any effect on Node.js internals, we should fix that.
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.
This is actually how VFSs are implemented in the ecosystem (pkg, electron, etc.) currently and fixing that would break a lot of packages and I believe the intention behind exposing Module._stat
is to allow this? I don't think there is any other use case behind Module._stat
or Module._readPackage
. cc @arcanis
FWIW, we are also trying to find better ways of doing this without monkey-patching in nodejs/single-executable#37.
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.
It shows that we probably also need Module._realPath
and Module._readFileSync
– or rather, that we need the loader hook API to stabilize. Anyway, I don't know if we want this is our tests, I think we want to break this 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.
@aduh95 if we start exposing Module._*
functions for these, we would have to do so for a lot more functions. These are the ones that Electron overrides - https://github.com/electron/electron/blob/eebf34cc6c4691e2ddca9b5a0a97566aeabd9072/lib/asar/fs-wrapper.ts#L236-L854 (quite a lot!) and there are probably additional ones in yarn's fslib implementation - https://github.com/yarnpkg/berry/tree/76ccb18b3b8cc81e28dbef5f3f867395aa31d5fb/packages/yarnpkg-fslib/sources/patchFs.
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 I personally have an expectation that Node.js should abide to its own fs
API (which is part of why _stat
and _readPackage
were so problematic, being the two places not doing so purely for optimization purposes).
It's probably never been discussed formally before though, and perhaps doing so would be a good thing (if only to get this use case formally recognized, supported, and covered by tests).
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.
I agree that the lack of consistency is quite bad. IMHO Node.js internals should not be affected by user-land actions, however I could see that we still want to support the use case of alternative fs
implementation, which could be supplied by e.g. a CLI flag and would affect the whole process, not just the few files where we forgot to use destructuring.
cc @nodejs/modules |
It’s pretty close. Once #44710 and #43772 land and we allow some time for baking, that’s all that’s on our list before declaring the API stable: https://github.com/nodejs/loaders#status |
To be clear, the PR that exposed |
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 I don't have real approval rights in this repo, but as far as I can tell the test looks fine to me 🙂
(As for reverting, I strongly object - I made the original PR for a reason, it shouldn't be reverted)
Where's the suggestion for reverting? Even if we eventually revert (not that I'm suggesting we do) it would be preferable to revert both the feature and its test together, I think, so we have the history. |
I posted the comment about reverting in #44713 (comment) in case we are not comfortable with exposing
Yes but for that we would need to land the test first. If you take a look at the contents of #44537 you would see that it landed without any tests, which is why I thought of sending a PR to add some. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Signed-off-by: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com>
9ec74c9
to
c19ddb9
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Landed in 37b8a60 |
Module._stat
landed in #44537 without a test, so this change adds one.Signed-off-by: Darshan Sen raisinten@gmail.com