doc: update examples of the final "callback" argument for fs.access()

[BeniCheni]

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Fixes: #17508

Per this following comment (as the origin of the aspiration to help out #17508), I've confirmed with the @ gireeshpunathil, and worked with the suggested content of #17578.

#17578 was never landed but has enough content in for a first timer to pick and progress.

Hope that the attempted fs.access snippets look okay in the PR. Happy to update according to review feedback. Thanks for reviewing in advance.

[Trott]

Nits:

• and/or -> and
• could be written to -> is writable

[Trott]

Nit: could not be written to -> is not writable

[Trott]

Nit: could not be read -> is readable

[vsemozhetbyt]

is not readable / is readable?

[Trott]

@vsemozhetbyt Yes, I forgot the not. Should be:

Nit: could not be read -> is not readable

[Trott]

Nit: could be written to -> is writable

[Trott]

Same with the comment: could be written to -> is writable

[Trott]

I wonder if the example code can be pared down a bit without losing any information. (I don't know if it can; I'm asking.)

@nodejs/documentation

@nodejs/fs

[vsemozhetbyt]

`package.json` for consistency?

[vsemozhetbyt]

CI-lite: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/645/

[BeniCheni]

🙏 for 1st round of review @Trott & @vsemozhetbyt. I've read your feedback and updated the content to emphasize contextually more on the suggested "readable" & "writable" keywords in the latest updates. Please review again?

I also saw the "pared down a bit" comment, which I'll look out for any further suggested feedback to account for that potential update. (happy to update it to if any suggest arises on that topic)

[vsemozhetbyt]

It seems this can be unwrapped now like in the block above, to spare some lines)

[vsemozhetbyt]

@BeniCheni@Trott Minimal changes I could think of (-11 lines without major refactoring):

Code:

constfile='package.json';// Check if the file exists in the current directory.fs.access(file,fs.constants.F_OK,(err)=>{console.log(`${file}${err ? 'does not exist' : 'exists'}`);});// Check if the file is readable.fs.access(file,fs.constants.R_OK,(err)=>{console.log(`${file}${err ? 'is not readable' : 'is readable'}`);});// Check if the file is writable.fs.access(file,fs.constants.W_OK,(err)=>{console.log(`${file}${err ? 'is not writable' : 'is writable'}`);});// Check if the file exists in the current directory, and if it is writable.fs.access(file,fs.constants.F_OK|fs.constants.W_OK,(err)=>{if(err){console.error(`${file}${err.code==='ENOENT' ? 'does not exist' : 'is read-only'}`);}else{console.log(`${file} exists, and it is writable`);}});

[vsemozhetbyt]

(And it seems // If there is an error, print the error in console and exit. can be deleted as self-evident; the proposal is updated.)

[BeniCheni]

@vsemozhetbyt , nice refactoring suggestion. I worked with the suggested code to update the PR, as well as removed the not so useful // if there is an error, comment. This draft should look better?

[vsemozhetbyt]

We can also replace './package.json' with just file here and in the next calls)

[BeniCheni]

Sounds good, @vsemozhetbyt. Updated the ./package.json to just file variable in relevant places. 👁 the PR again?

[vsemozhetbyt]

@Trott Can we land it in this variant?

[Trott]

@Trott Can we land it in this variant?

@vsemozhetbyt I have no objections.

[vsemozhetbyt]

(Missed CI-lite link: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/650/)

[vsemozhetbyt]

Landed in b4ca3a4
Thank you!