errors, path: migrate to use internal/errors.js by seppevs · Pull Request #11319 · nodejs/node

seppevs · 2017-02-12T08:11:17Z

Migrate path.js to use internal/errors.js.

Refs: #11273

cc @jasnell

Checklist

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

Affected core subsystem(s)

errors,path

thefourtheye · 2017-02-12T17:10:14Z

lib/path.js

Why typeof path is not passed?

The typeof path was not passed before the change. The inspect(path) returned the value, this is not something the ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE supports.

thefourtheye · 2017-02-12T17:22:57Z

Related: #11308 also has an implementation for invalidArgType.

seppevs · 2017-02-13T09:35:14Z

@thefourtheye : yes, it's the same implementation. Just like in #11300

seppevs · 2017-05-01T19:58:24Z

I've just rebased this.

jasnell · 2017-05-01T21:46:24Z

lib/path.js

hmm... I'm thinking string (lowercase) would be better on these.

refack

Need to gourd against changes in messages https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md#breaking-changes

refack · 2017-05-03T13:13:03Z

test/parallel/test-fs-watchfile.js

 assert.throws(function() {
  fs.watchFile(new Object(), common.noop);
-}, /Path must be a string/);
+}, common.expectsError({code: 'ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE', type: TypeError}));


Could you add an assertion on the message as well?
(Changing the message is semver-major so let's enforce it)

This is a semver-major change, so it's totally fine to change the message.

Yes, but let's keep it from regressing.

refack · 2017-05-03T13:14:36Z

test/parallel/test-path-parse-format.js

+const expectedMessage = common.expectsError({
+  code: 'ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE',
+  type: TypeError
+});


ditto.
(You can turn this into a Factory that takes the messages)

refack · 2017-05-03T13:14:47Z

test/parallel/test-path.js

  assert.throws(() => {
    fn.apply(null, args);
-  }, TypeError);
+  }, common.expectsError({code: 'ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE', type: TypeError}));


fhinkel · 2017-05-23T17:02:36Z

@seppevs Thanks so much for putting this together. Sorry that it is dragging out for so long due to being a semver-major change.

@jasnell Could you take another look? I think your comment has been addressed.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8255/

refack · 2017-05-23T22:44:27Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8255/

CI failures are infrastructure related.

mhdawson

LGTM

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T18:50:28Z

test/parallel/test-path-parse-format.js

+  {method: 'format', input: [null], message: expectedMessage},
+  {method: 'format', input: [''], message: expectedMessage},
+  {method: 'format', input: [true], message: expectedMessage},
+  {method: 'format', input: [1], message: expectedMessage},


We'll need to agree on whether the tests should check the contents of the message or not, but since have landed tests both with and without, I'm fine with landing as is.

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T18:52:26Z

@refack I can't quite tell from the comments/discussion if your suggestions have been addressed and you are ok with this landing. It looks like the CI is good and it may be ready to go but I'd like to be sure. Since the CI is also 2 weeks old we probably want to run a new one.

refack · 2017-06-06T18:54:59Z

We'll need to agree on whether the tests should check the contents of the message or not, but since have landed tests both with and without, I'm fine with landing as is.

@mhdawson Like you said, not worth blocking for full message validation.

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T18:59:09Z

@refack thanks for the quick response. I'll open an issue where we can discuss what we think is the right way to go on the messages and then we can do a second pass to fix up based on what we decide.

New CI run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8517/

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T21:17:08Z

OSX CI failure looks unrelated. Opened this issue to track: #13507

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T21:18:01Z

CI good so landing.

mhdawson · 2017-06-06T21:22:50Z

Landed as dcfbbac

PR-URL: #11319 Ref: #11273 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>

nodejs-github-bot added errors Issues and PRs related to JavaScript errors originated in Node.js core. path Issues and PRs related to the path subsystem. labels Feb 12, 2017

thefourtheye reviewed Feb 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

thefourtheye mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2017

errors, console: migrate to use internal/errors.js #11308

Closed

4 tasks

jasnell mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2017

Tracking Issue: Migrate errors to internal/errors.js #11273

Closed

80 tasks

joyeecheung added the semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. label Feb 14, 2017

jasnell added the blocked PRs that are blocked by other issues or PRs. label Apr 5, 2017

refack force-pushed the master branch from 16073c0 to fbe946b Compare April 14, 2017 04:11

seppevs force-pushed the path_use_internal_errors branch from 967737a to 9fa0056 Compare May 1, 2017 19:58

jasnell reviewed May 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

path: use internal/errors.js

a567257

seppevs force-pushed the path_use_internal_errors branch from 9fa0056 to a567257 Compare May 3, 2017 06:57

refack suggested changes May 3, 2017

View reviewed changes

fhinkel approved these changes May 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell approved these changes May 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

mhdawson approved these changes Jun 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

refack approved these changes Jun 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

mhdawson removed the blocked PRs that are blocked by other issues or PRs. label Jun 6, 2017

mhdawson closed this Jun 6, 2017

jasnell mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2017

Proposal: 2017-10-31, Version 9.0.0 (Current) #15135

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

seppevs commented Feb 12, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheye commented Feb 12, 2017

Uh oh!

seppevs commented Feb 13, 2017

Uh oh!

seppevs commented May 1, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

refack left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fhinkel commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

refack commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

refack commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented Jun 6, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

refack left a comment •

edited

Loading