-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.5k
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
process: refactor emitWarning #20726
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 removes the possibility of an
undefined
warning that has the other properties specified.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.
That is not officially supported.
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.
While not documented, as far as I can tell this was requested in #4782
It has also worked this way for two years... I don't know what usage people have for this or what they're passing to it. It might very well be a breaking change.
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 with @apapirovski on this. This is a breaking change even if not properly documented.
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.
process.emitWarning()
produces:(node:XXXX) Warning
. I am not convinced that this is useful at all. This seems like a bugfix as no args should result in an error. Therefore I would say it is a patch. However, I would also keep this if it makes this semver-major.Ping @nodejs/tsc please also give an opinion.
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.
process.emitWarning(undefined, 'fhqwhgads', 'come-on')
produces the slightly more useful(node:91812) [come-on] fhqwhgads
.I have no idea if anyone uses that pattern or not. Maybe it's time for me to figure out how to use Gzemnid.
In the spirit of the onboarding-extras.md:
It seems like this should be semver-major as it has a "remote change of breaking something".
(If we're not going to call this semver-major, I won't push back, but we really ought to remove the quoted sentence above from the doc since it is clearly not something we abide by in that case.)