Solve fix inconsistent (hostname vs host) in DNS. #20892

[shakeelmohamed]

This PR replaces #21471 and closes #20892 by fixing a linting issue by a line being over 80 characters after the host -> hostname rename.

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

I found there's a linting issue with PR #21471:

$ make lint-js-fix

$NODE_SOURCE/node/test/parallel/test-dns.js
  247:1  error  Line 247 exceeds the maximum line length of 80  max-len

✖ 1 problem (1 error, 0 warnings)

make: *** [lint-js-fix] Error 1

The following patch addresses this issue:

diff --git a/test/parallel/test-dns.js b/test/parallel/test-dns.js
index c6f5995cde..98d3670d47 100644
--- a/test/parallel/test-dns.js
+++ b/test/parallel/test-dns.js
@@ -244,7 +244,8 @@ dns.lookup('', {
   const err = {
     code: 'ERR_MISSING_ARGS',
     type: TypeError,
-    message: 'The "hostname", "port", and "callback" arguments must be specified'
+    message: 'The "hostname", "port", and "callback" arguments must be ' +
+    'specified'
   };
 
   common.expectsError(() => dns.lookupService('0.0.0.0'), err);

I've verified this locally:

$ make lint-ci    
Running JS linter...
Running C++ linter...
Total errors found: 0
Running Markdown linter on misc docs...
Running Markdown linter on docs...
rm -f -r test/addons/??_*/
[ -x ./node ] && ./node tools/doc/addon-verify.js || node tools/doc/addon-verify.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/01_function_arguments/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/02_callbacks/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/01_function_arguments/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/01_function_arguments/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/02_callbacks/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/02_callbacks/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/03_object_factory/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/03_object_factory/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/03_object_factory/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/04_function_factory/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/05_wrapping_c_objects/myobject.h
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/04_function_factory/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/04_function_factory/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/05_wrapping_c_objects/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/06_factory_of_wrapped_objects/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/05_wrapping_c_objects/myobject.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/05_wrapping_c_objects/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/05_wrapping_c_objects/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/06_factory_of_wrapped_objects/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/06_factory_of_wrapped_objects/myobject.h
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/07_passing_wrapped_objects_around/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/07_passing_wrapped_objects_around/myobject.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/06_factory_of_wrapped_objects/myobject.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/07_passing_wrapped_objects_around/myobject.h
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/07_passing_wrapped_objects_around/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/06_factory_of_wrapped_objects/binding.gyp
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/08_void_atexitcallback_args/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/08_void_atexitcallback_args/addon.cc
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/07_passing_wrapped_objects_around/test.js
Wrote $NODE_SOURCE/node/test/addons/08_void_atexitcallback_args/binding.gyp
touch test/addons/.docbuildstamp
Running C++ linter on addon docs...
Total errors found: 0

[shakeelmohamed]

@addaleax hey, any guidance on the CI failure?
The command git log $TRAVIS_COMMIT_RANGE --pretty=format:'%h' --no-merges | tail -1 | xargs npx core-validate-commit --no-validate-metadata shows an issue with commit 9d7895c567e8f38abfff35da1b6d6d6a0a06f9aa which isn't part of this PR.
Am I missing something obvious?

[lundibundi]

Just to understand this: isn't this name used later on during the resolution on the libuv side? And if it's not then what's the use of assigning it here?
/cc @addaleax @jasnell

[addaleax]

@lundibundi I think the only use we currently have for it is this.hostname in onlookupservice() above? I might be missing something, though.

[lundibundi]

Looks like it as I haven't found anything down to the libuv/unix/getnameinfo, though I may have missed it. Though it looks kind of strange that we pass hostname both via req/this and as an argument in case of success.

Well, anyway, CI is almost green so this is fine =).

[addaleax]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17897/

[Trott]

@addaleax hey, any guidance on the CI failure?
The command git log $TRAVIS_COMMIT_RANGE --pretty=format:'%h' --no-merges | tail -1 | xargs npx core-validate-commit --no-validate-metadata shows an issue with commit 9d7895c which isn't part of this PR.
Am I missing something obvious?

That's a bug in either Travis or (more likely) our .travis.yml implementation. You can ignore it. I'll see if I can figure it out, but for the moment, I'm kinda stumped.

[Trott]

(I'll try to fix it by having Travis skip the commit message linting if the environment variable is not populated.)

[Trott]

Resume Build CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/1​79​67/

[addaleax]

Resume build again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18018/

[Trott]

Landed in beb0f03.

Thanks for the contribution! 🎉

(If you're interested in other possible contributions to Node.js but don't have a good idea of where to start looking, some ideas are posted at https://www.nodetodo.org/next-steps/.)