Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
process: suggest --trace-warnings when printing warning - #32797
Conversation
Suggest using `--trace-warnings` or `--trace-deprecation` the first time a warning is emitted without a stack trace, similar to how we suggest `--trace-uncaught` when printing uncaught exceptions without a stack trace.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Apr 12, 2020
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/30672/ (:white_check_mark:) |
addaleax
commented
Apr 15, 2020
Landed in 907ebdd |
Suggest using `--trace-warnings` or `--trace-deprecation` the first time a warning is emitted without a stack trace, similar to how we suggest `--trace-uncaught` when printing uncaught exceptions without a stack trace. PR-URL: #32797 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Refs: #32797 (comment) PR-URL: #32798 Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Suggest using `--trace-warnings` or `--trace-deprecation` the first time a warning is emitted without a stack trace, similar to how we suggest `--trace-uncaught` when printing uncaught exceptions without a stack trace. PR-URL: #32797 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Refs: #32797 (comment) PR-URL: #32798 Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Suggest using `--trace-warnings` or `--trace-deprecation` the first time a warning is emitted without a stack trace, similar to how we suggest `--trace-uncaught` when printing uncaught exceptions without a stack trace. PR-URL: #32797 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Refs: #32797 (comment) PR-URL: #32798 Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Refs: #32797 (comment) PR-URL: #32798 Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
codebytere
commented
Jun 9, 2020
@addaleax should this go back into |
addaleax
commented
Jun 9, 2020
@codebytere I’m not sure myself. @targos@cjihrig@devnexen@richardlau@BridgeAR You approved this, wdyt? |
cjihrig
commented
Jun 10, 2020
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I would not backport this unless it starts causing a lot of problems backporting other commits. |
BridgeAR
commented
Jun 10, 2020
I would backport it. Otherwise this is going to cause conflicts on each warning that is backported and it is helpful for users. |
richardlau
commented
Jun 10, 2020
I agree with @cjihrig 's position. I do think the extra message is useful but it does introduce an extra line of output which, as can be seen by the test changes, can affect anything trying to parse the output of running a Node.js application. If the change breaks anything in CITGM for 12.x I'd be a hard no to backporting. |
BridgeAR
commented
Jun 10, 2020
I added the don't land on 12 label due to the comments above. |
Suggest using
--trace-warningsor--trace-deprecationthe firsttime a warning is emitted without a stack trace, similar to how
we suggest
--trace-uncaughtwhen printing uncaught exceptionswithout a stack trace.
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes