-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.2k
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
worker_threads: proper env and NODE_OPTIONS handling #31711
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Tbh, I think this is a situation here we should just use
ERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
, as it is the same type of error that’s being reportedThere 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.
Gave it another thought, imo
ERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
is way too specific and may mislead people into thinking that the error is elsewhere. I think it would be better to addERR_WORKER_INVALID_OPTIONS
and group bothERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
andERR_WORKER_INVALID_NODE_OPTIONS
under it, though that may be breaking. Or just add and useERR_WORKER_INVALID_OPTIONS
here and then open a semver-major to change that in forERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
. wdyt?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’s a general problem with our error codes – they tend to be way too specific.
I’d be good with changing the code, but yes, that would be breaking and I’d like to avoid it in this PR.
I’d still be good with using
ERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
and then pointing out in the error message where the error came from (and, ideally, also in a property on the error object). We can always switch that to a different error code later.(Fwiw,
ERR_WORKER_INVALID_OPTIONS
sounds like it refers to the options object passed to theWorker
constructor…)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 was the idea - part of the options passed is incorrect. tbh we can probably use
ERR_INVALID_OPT_VALUE
from #31251 😄.Then I'll use the
ERR_WORKER_INVALID_EXEC_ARGV
in this PR and then open another for the error change.