Skip to content
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

Sync with Node.js master #44

Merged
merged 131 commits into from
May 12, 2019
Merged

Sync with Node.js master #44

merged 131 commits into from
May 12, 2019

Conversation

lukechilds
Copy link
Member

@lukechilds lukechilds commented Apr 11, 2019

Resolves #32

Obviously not ready to merge yet, just opening this PR now to have a central place for review and discussion regarding these changes. Ready to rock and roll!


Just to explain my thought process:

The initial commit in this branch is nuking all existing work and the second commit is setting up the project in the way discussed in the related issue. Two main reasons for this:

  1. I thought it would be messy to have essentially two code bases co-existing in the same branch while we're working on this. I thought it would just add confusion and add a load of noise to commits.

  2. If we decide at some point that actually this should be a new project in a separate repo, we can just push this branch to master in the new repo and delete all history before my first nuke commit. That would give us a completely clean repo with proper history.


I've included assert and all tests directly from current Node.js master, including a comment header of the commit hash it references in the Node.js repo.

I've also added a simple tape wrapper around the Node.js tests and these are running on Travis.

My general plan is:

  • First work on getting the tests working (or as many as we reasonably can) against Node.js core assert/util modules without relying on internal Node.js functionality.
  • Once tests are working, switch over to testing against our assert and fixing that to pass tests without relying on internal Node.js functionality.
  • Once our assert is passing tests, switch over to testing against browserify util rather than Node.js util and fixing that to pass tests without relying on internal Node.js functionality.
  • Once everything is working in pure userland code without relying on any internal functionality or Node.js core dependencies, we can transpile the resulting code down to something appropriate for our browser targets and shim any required APIs. Also add automated browser testing.

util is used in both tests and assert so it might not be possible to split the work up into clean atomic steps as described here but that's my general idea.


The diff is going to be pretty noisy due to the substantial changes to the project structure so if you want to get a quick overview just have a look at the tip of the branch: https://github.com/browserify/commonjs-assert/tree/sync-with-node-master

I'm just fleshing everything out in this branch for now. However, it'll probably make sense to switch to feature branches that get merged into this branch to track changes more easily and allow other people to contribute.

Does this project structure make sense? Does my plan make sense? Any suggestions?

// cc @goto-bus-stop @BridgeAR

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

lukechilds commented Apr 11, 2019

Oh also @BridgeAR, is it ok to run the Node.js tests in this way? Serially requiring each test file in the same process?

Or does each test file expect to be run in it's own isolated Node.js process?

Also, what are those .out files for in test/pseudo-tty? Can I delete them?

@lukechilds lukechilds force-pushed the sync-with-node-master branch 4 times, most recently from b6bab61 to 183ec0a Compare April 16, 2019 09:24
@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

Woop woop, tests are passing against Node.js v12.0.0-rc.1 on Travis 🎉

https://travis-ci.org/browserify/commonjs-assert/jobs/520670587

I'm guessing Node.js v11 is failing because the tests are testing functionality in master (and v12) that isn't in Node.js v11 core assert/util.

Hopefully these tests should start passing as I port assert/util over to pure userland code.

@gfx
Copy link

gfx commented May 10, 2019

I've given it a try in my package with karma+karma-webpack (+ts-loader), and found its dependency "buffer" is incompatible with webpack/node-libs-browser's so my test doesn't pass with the default webpack nodejs polyfills.

This is, I think, a problem in node-libs-browser (webpack/node-libs-browser#68 issued in 2017!), but until the issue is fixed, "buffer": ">= 4" is better in the version spec.


(edited)

Here are my karma settings that use this branch: msgpack/msgpack-javascript#20
This doesn't work with the released versions of commonjs-assert because it depends on the latest NodeJS's assert behavior.

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

We can probably actually remove the buffer dep here in favour of a simpler Buffer.compare shim.

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

Literally just pulled the compare shim back in that was already in master:

// compare and isBuffer taken from https://github.com/feross/buffer/blob/680e9e5e488f22aac27599a57dc844a6315928dd/index.js
// original notice:
/*!
* The buffer module from node.js, for the browser.
*
* @author Feross Aboukhadijeh <[email protected]> <http://feross.org>
* @license MIT
*/
function compare(a, b) {
if (a === b) {
return 0;
}
var x = a.length;
var y = b.length;
for (var i = 0, len = Math.min(x, y); i < len; ++i) {
if (a[i] !== b[i]) {
x = a[i];
y = b[i];
break;
}
}
if (x < y) {
return -1;
}
if (y < x) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}

All unit tests are still passing.

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

lukechilds commented May 10, 2019

@gfx just seen your edit

Here are my karma settings that use this branch: msgpack/msgpack-javascript#20
This doesn't work with the released versions of commonjs-assert because it depends on the latest NodeJS's assert behavior.

Just to clarify, are you saying your code doesn't work with the current published assert but does work with this branch?

@gfx
Copy link

gfx commented May 10, 2019

Just clarify, are you saying your code doesn't work with the current published assert but does work with this branch?

Yes! So I am waiting for the PR is merged!

gfx added a commit to msgpack/msgpack-javascript that referenced this pull request May 10, 2019
@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

@goto-bus-stop @BridgeAR any ETA for publishing this?

Are you just holding off merging so you can do some SemVer minor releases first or do you need something else from me?

@BridgeAR BridgeAR mentioned this pull request May 10, 2019
@goto-bus-stop
Copy link
Member

it's unlikely i'll be able to take a close look at this very soon, so i'm happy to go with your and @BridgeAR's judgement

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

lukechilds commented May 10, 2019

I'm happy with it and we've got a user report saying it's fixing issues for them so I'd say it's all good. I don't have npm permissions though so can't publish myself.

"homepage": "https://github.com/browserify/commonjs-assert",
"repository": "browserify/commonjs-assert",
"scripts": {
"build": "babel assert.js test.js --out-dir build && babel internal --out-dir build/internal && babel test --out-dir build/test",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this a task to prepare npm publish? If so, you should use the prepare task:

https://docs.npmjs.com/misc/scripts#prepublish-and-prepare

So I can use this library by npm install browserify/commonjs-assert even in IE11, whereas other modern browsers does not require ES5 artifacts.

Copy link
Member Author

@lukechilds lukechilds May 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added, thanks.

@goto-bus-stop
Copy link
Member

@lukechilds added you

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

lukechilds commented May 11, 2019

Thanks!

Ok unless I hear anything else from you @goto-bus-stop @BridgeAR I'll merge and do a new release tomorrow. 🎉

@lukechilds lukechilds merged commit b65e3fb into master May 12, 2019
@kuraga
Copy link

kuraga commented May 12, 2019

YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@lukechilds
Copy link
Member Author

Just published [email protected] with these changes!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Sync with Node.js master
6 participants