Skip to content
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

doc: fix wording in napi_async_init #49180

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 17, 2023

Conversation

tniessen
Copy link
Member

Even after reading through #32930, I am not quite sure what this was supposed to say, so please feel free to suggest alternatives. cc @legendecas @mhdawson

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/node-api

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. node-api Issues and PRs related to the Node-API. labels Aug 15, 2023
Copy link
Member

@legendecas legendecas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The grammatical fix is LGTM.

@@ -5633,7 +5633,7 @@ problems like loss of async context when using the `AsyncLocalStorage` API.

In order to retain ABI compatibility with previous versions, passing `NULL`
for `async_resource` does not result in an error. However, this is not
recommended as this will result poor results with `async_hooks`
recommended as this will result in undesirable behavior with `async_hooks`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found that in #32930, NULL is coerced to a newly created strong-referenced object to avoid breaking async_hooks.executionAsyncResource(). So it is not breaking async_hooks.executionAsyncResource() and AsyncLocalStorage, with the reason mentioned in the paragraph above.

As async_hooks.executionAsyncResource() is guaranteed to return a non-null object, it might be sufficient to state it is undefined behavior if the async_resource is NULL with the semantic conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@lpinca lpinca added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Aug 17, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Aug 17, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot merged commit c4bbf0a into nodejs:main Aug 17, 2023
24 checks passed
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Landed in c4bbf0a

UlisesGascon pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2023
Refs: #32930
PR-URL: #49180
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2023
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2023
Refs: #32930
PR-URL: #49180
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
sercher added a commit to sercher/graaljs that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2024
Refs: nodejs/node#32930
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49180
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
sercher added a commit to sercher/graaljs that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2024
Refs: nodejs/node#32930
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49180
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. node-api Issues and PRs related to the Node-API.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants