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

src: remove dead code in async_wrap #56065

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2024

Conversation

Flarna
Copy link
Member

@Flarna Flarna commented Nov 28, 2024

The silent option for AsyncWrap and AsyncReset is not used anywhere.

Seems like a leftover from times PromiseWrap was used.

Refs: #39135

The silent option for AsyncWrap and AsyncReset is not used anywhere.

Seems like a leftover from times PromiseWrap was used.
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. labels Nov 28, 2024
@Flarna Flarna added async_hooks Issues and PRs related to the async hooks subsystem. author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. labels Nov 28, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 28, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.00%. Comparing base (4cf6fab) to head (04308b9).
Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #56065   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.00%   88.00%           
=======================================
  Files         656      656           
  Lines      188988   188981    -7     
  Branches    35992    35990    -2     
=======================================
+ Hits       166315   166316    +1     
+ Misses      15838    15828   -10     
- Partials     6835     6837    +2     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/async_wrap.cc 83.42% <100.00%> (+0.75%) ⬆️

... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes

@Flarna Flarna added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Nov 28, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Nov 28, 2024
@nodejs-github-bot

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nodejs-github-bot

This comment was marked as outdated.

@juanarbol
Copy link
Member

I've triggered a CI run

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63770/

Copy link
Member

@juanarbol juanarbol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

rubber stamp LGTM

@Flarna Flarna added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Dec 1, 2024
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Dec 1, 2024
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot merged commit 384fa62 into nodejs:main Dec 1, 2024
76 checks passed
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Landed in 384fa62

@Flarna Flarna deleted the async_wrap_deadcode branch December 1, 2024 18:58
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2024
The silent option for AsyncWrap and AsyncReset is not used anywhere.

Seems like a leftover from times PromiseWrap was used.

PR-URL: #56065
Refs: #39135
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Juan José Arboleda <soyjuanarbol@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
async_hooks Issues and PRs related to the async hooks subsystem. author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants