doc: add code example to inspector.url() method

[juanarbol]

Checklist

• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[juanarbol]

ping @Trott

[Trott]

LIte CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/3928/

[Trott]

@nodejs/documentation How do we feel about this sample code? It's not really a runnable code sample. It's really just "Here's what the output would be with three completely different invocations of Node.js." I'm OK with this because it's probably still an improvement over the current doc. But there's probably an even better way to show this that doesn't suggest that the value can change within a single process when it won't?

[juanarbol]

@Trott I'm not part of documentation working group, but I could change that JS sintax to Shell, so instead of:

// Node.js process was called with --inspect flag.require('inspector').url()
Debugger listeningonws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72Forhelpsee https://nodejs.org/en/docs/inspector
ws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72

Could be more like:

$ node --inspect -p "require('inspector').url()"Debugger listening on ws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72For help see https://nodejs.org/en/docs/inspectorws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72

[Trott]

@Trott I'm not part of documentation working group, but I could change that JS sintax to Shell, so instead of:

// Node.js process was called with --inspect flag.require('inspector').url()
Debugger listeningonws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72Forhelpsee https://nodejs.org/en/docs/inspector
ws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72

Could be more like:

$ node --inspect -p "require('inspector').url()"
Debugger listening on ws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72
For help see https://nodejs.org/en/docs/inspector
ws://127.0.0.1:9229/136e8c71-8901-43d8-b666-1d74a161cd72

I could see that being a good option, especially if the commands in question work verbatim on Windows.

[juanarbol]

I'm not a Windows expert, but, I'd love to see the @nodejs/documentation opinions before making a new change, but yeah! I can change this for making this better.

[Trott]

I'm not a Windows expert, but, I'd love to see the @nodejs/documentation opinions before making a new change, but yeah! I can change this for making this better.

I'm not a Windows expert, but I think those commands would work on Windows too. @nodejs/platform-windows

[juanarbol]

I found something: "Return the URL of the active inspector, or undefined if there is none.", and by the way, In default options, I see that, by default, debugger is 127.0.0.1:9229, maybe, maybe... say that could improves documentation:

"Return the URL of the active inspector, 127.0.0.1:9229 by default, or undefined if there is none." With better sintax, of course.

[juanarbol]

Pong @Trott

[Trott]

Since built-in modules are automatically loaded when Node.js is run this way, we could consider simplifying to something like this here and below?:

Suggested change

	$ node --inspect -p "require('inspector').url()"
	$ node --inspect -p 'inspector.url()'

[Trott]

And adding to the suggested change above, we can make the output easier to read by making it clear what part of the output is from inspector.url() since there are a couple other lines of output that might confuse the reader?:

Suggested change

	$ node --inspect -p "require('inspector').url()"
	$ node --inspect -p '`\ninspector.url() result: ${inspector.url()}\n`'```

That makes the command line a little bit harder to read, but the output easier to read, so...
¯\(ツ)/¯

[Trott]

My comments above are suggestions only. If someone wants to run this on CI and land it as it is right now, I'm fine with that.

[juanarbol]

Ping @Trott, I think this is ready, is it?

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/27528/
Lite-CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/4105/

[targos]

Landed in 4113601