util: adhere to `noDeprecation` set at runtime by addaleax · Pull Request #6683 · nodejs/node

addaleax · 2016-05-11T03:13:06Z

Checklist

tests and code linting passes
a test and/or benchmark is included
documentation is changed or added
the commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

process (util?)

Description of change

Until now, the docs stated that process.noDeprecation could be set at runtime, but before any modules were loaded. That was not true, because lib/internal/util.js was loaded during the process startup process, so setting the flag at runtime was always pointless.

Minimal test case:

process.noDeprecation=true;process.EventEmitter;

This patch moves checking process.noDeprecation to the place where it was actually used.

/cc @jasnell

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/3263/

bnoordhuis · 2016-05-11T08:00:40Z

Can you add a check that calling printDeprecationMessage() after setting process.noDeprecation to false again does emit a deprecation warning?

bnoordhuis · 2016-05-11T08:48:30Z

Nice, LGTM.

thefourtheye · 2016-05-11T13:05:00Z

If I am not wrong this function should not be called right? I think assert(false, 'this should not be called'); or something like this would be better I guess.

addaleax · 2016-05-11T14:32:00Z

Updated based on @thefourtheye’s suggestion.

Fishrock123 · 2016-05-11T15:24:33Z

common.fail(message) :)

Fishrock123 · 2016-05-11T15:27:20Z

Mostly LGTM, good catch.

addaleax · 2016-05-11T15:39:49Z

@Fishrock123 looking better now? :)

Fishrock123 · 2016-05-11T16:09:10Z

Unused warning?

@Fishrock123 eh, yes, sorry. fixed.

Fishrock123 · 2016-05-11T16:10:12Z

Yeah. Another CI would be nice before landing once that nit is fixed

jasnell · 2016-05-11T16:17:27Z

this could fail if any other warnings happened to be emitted in the future. The warning object can be checked to see if it is a DeprecationWarning by looking at the name property or the message can be checked explicitly.

That's unlikely though, is it? That would mean core is doing something internally that is worthy of warning. I'd consider that a bug.

Wasn't commenting on the likeliness of it... just the possibility of it. ;-)

@jasnell lol, literally what I had written here at first. But @thefourtheye made a good point, if there are other warnings emitted in the future, it’s probably best to know about that, even if that might mean having to change the test file again.

;-) ok @addaleax ... sgtm

Until now, the docs stated that `process.noDeprecation` could be set at runtime, but before any modules were loaded. That was not true, because `lib/internal/util.js` was loaded during the process startup process, so setting the flag at runtime was pointless. Minimal test case: process.noDeprecation = true; process.EventEmitter; This patch moves checking `process.noDeprecation` to the place where it was actually used.

addaleax · 2016-05-11T16:39:24Z

New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/3278/

thefourtheye · 2016-05-11T17:54:38Z

LGTM

cjihrig · 2016-05-13T14:52:41Z

LGTM. CI is green.

Until now, the docs stated that `process.noDeprecation` could be set at runtime, but before any modules were loaded. That was not true, because `lib/internal/util.js` was loaded during the process startup process, so setting the flag at runtime was pointless. Minimal test case: process.noDeprecation = true; process.EventEmitter; This patch moves checking `process.noDeprecation` to the place where it was actually used. PR-URL: #6683 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

addaleax · 2016-05-13T19:35:27Z

Landed in a4564f3

Until now, the docs stated that `process.noDeprecation` could be set at runtime, but before any modules were loaded. That was not true, because `lib/internal/util.js` was loaded during the process startup process, so setting the flag at runtime was pointless. Minimal test case: process.noDeprecation = true; process.EventEmitter; This patch moves checking `process.noDeprecation` to the place where it was actually used. PR-URL: #6683 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

- **buffer**: fix lastIndexOf and indexOf in various edge cases (Anna Henningsen) [#6511](#6511) - **child_process**: use /system/bin/sh on android (Ben Noordhuis) [#6745](#6745) - **deps**: - upgrade npm to 3.8.9 (Rebecca Turner) [#6664](#6664) - upgrade to V8 5.0.71.47 (Ali Ijaz Sheikh) [#6572](#6572) - upgrade libuv to 1.9.1 (Saúl Ibarra Corretgé) [#6796](#6796) - Intl: ICU 57 bump (Steven R. Loomis) [#6088](#6088) - **repl**: - copying tabs shouldn't trigger completion (Eugene Obrezkov) [#5958](#5958) - exports `Recoverable` (Blake Embrey) [#3488](#3488) - **src**: add O_NOATIME constant (Rich Trott) [#6492](#6492) - **src,module**: add --preserve-symlinks command line flag (James M Snell) [#6537](#6537) - **util**: adhere to `noDeprecation` set at runtime (Anna Henningsen) [#6683](#6683) As of this release the 6.X line now includes 64-bit binaries for Linux on Power Systems running in big endian mode in addition to the existing 64-bit binaries for running in little endian mode. PR-URL: #6810

MylesBorins · 2016-06-02T00:46:36Z

@addaleax lts?

addaleax · 2016-06-02T00:50:26Z

Nope, the behaviour in v4.x is fine already.

addaleax added the process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. label May 11, 2016

bnoordhuis reviewed May 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

addaleax force-pushed the fix-no-deprecation branch from 8ce7305 to 9180ec8Compare May 11, 2016 08:43

thefourtheye reviewed May 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

thefourtheye added util Issues and PRs related to the built-in util module. and removed process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. labels May 11, 2016

addaleax force-pushed the fix-no-deprecation branch from 9180ec8 to 26eabd1Compare May 11, 2016 14:30

Fishrock123 reviewed May 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

Comment threadtest/parallel/test-process-no-deprecation.js Outdated
Fishrock123May 11, 2016
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.fail(message) :)

addaleax force-pushed the fix-no-deprecation branch from 26eabd1 to d8abe30Compare May 11, 2016 15:39

Fishrock123 reviewed May 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

addaleax force-pushed the fix-no-deprecation branch 2 times, most recently from fe73664 to 372ea85Compare May 11, 2016 16:16

jasnell reviewed May 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

addaleax force-pushed the fix-no-deprecation branch from 372ea85 to dc8ea89Compare May 11, 2016 16:27

addaleax closed this May 13, 2016

addaleax deleted the fix-no-deprecation branch May 13, 2016 19:35

evanlucas mentioned this pull request May 17, 2016
2016-05-17, Version 6.2.0 (Stable) #6810
Merged

MylesBorins added the lts-watch-v4.x label Jun 2, 2016

addaleax added dont-land-on-v4.x and removed lts-watch-v4.x labels Jun 2, 2016

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

addaleax commented May 11, 2016• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Description of change

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnoordhuis commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Fishrock123 commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Fishrock123 commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

addaleaxMay 11, 2016• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

thefourtheye commented May 11, 2016

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented May 13, 2016

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 13, 2016

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Jun 2, 2016

Uh oh!

addaleax commented Jun 2, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

addaleax commented May 11, 2016•
edited
Loading

addaleaxMay 11, 2016•
edited
Loading