In MODULARIZE mode avoid modifying the incoming moduleArg. NFC #21775
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
brendandahl
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2024
| @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ | |||
| // before the code. Then that object will be used in the code, and you | |||
| // can continue to use Module afterwards as well. | |||
| #if MODULARIZE | |||
| var Module = moduleArg; | |||
| var Module = Object.assign({}, moduleArg); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think we could take this further and fully separate the arguments and return value at some point too (i.e. not put all the module arg inputs on the module return value)? It would be a bigger breaking change, but IIRC it doesn't seem like many people rely on that behavior when using modularize?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see what you mean, yes. I think it might be possible yes.
This avoids leaking of the partially constructed module and means that only way to get access the module instance is via waiting on the promise. Previously we were attaching all our module properties to the incoming object, but not, as far as I can tell for any good reason. In case anybody was actually depending on this, inject thunks into the moduleArg that abort on access with an actionable error.
kripken
reviewed
Apr 17, 2024
| var promise = Module(arg); | ||
| arg._foo();''') | ||
|
|
||
| expected = "Aborted(Access to module property ('_foo') is no longer possible via the incoming module contructor argument; Instead, use the result of the module promise" |
kripken
reviewed
Apr 17, 2024
| var promise = Module(arg); | ||
| arg._foo();''') | ||
|
|
||
| expected = "Aborted(Access to module property ('_foo') is no longer possible via the incoming module contructor argument; Instead, use the result of the module promise" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I read this comment a few times and I'm not actually sure what the user is expected to do to fix it? This is post-js code so it is inside the emitted JS, how can the module Promise be accessed?
Also, this seems like a breaking change that should be mentioned in the changelog?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is --extern-post-js code.. where we run the Module() constructor, but we ignore the return value and instead try to use a method on the argument we passed into the constructor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, thanks, I missed the -extern-.
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
- Add changelog entry - Fix typo in error message - Improve error message
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
The change that was made back in emscripten-core#21775 means that its no longer OK to ignore the return value of the `MODULARIZE` constructor function. Fixes: emscripten-core#21908
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
The change that was made back in emscripten-core#21775 means that its no longer OK to ignore the return value of the `MODULARIZE` constructor function. Fixes: emscripten-core#21908
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
The change that was made back in emscripten-core#21775 means that its no longer OK to ignore the return value of the `MODULARIZE` constructor function. Fixes: emscripten-core#21908
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2024
emscripten-core#21775)" This change effectively reverts 4dac6d6. It turns out that there is at least one use case where accessing the partially constructed module prior to the promise resolution is necessary. Specifically when using `--preload-files` the file packager output expects to be able to use the `Module.FS` functions before the module is loaded.
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2024
emscripten-core#21775)" This change effectively reverts 4dac6d6. It turns out that there is at least one use case where accessing the partially constructed module prior to the promise resolution is necessary. Specifically when using `--preload-files` the file packager output expects to be able to use the `Module.FS` functions before the module is loaded. This PR adds a test for this scenario.
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2024
#21775)" (#21994) This change effectively reverts 4dac6d6. It turns out that there is at least one use case where accessing the partially constructed module prior to the promise resolution is necessary. Specifically when using `--preload-files` the file packager output expects to be able to use the `Module.FS` functions before the module is loaded. This PR adds a test for this scenario.
msorvig
pushed a commit
to msorvig/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2024
emscripten-core#21775)" (emscripten-core#21994) This change effectively reverts 4dac6d6. It turns out that there is at least one use case where accessing the partially constructed module prior to the promise resolution is necessary. Specifically when using `--preload-files` the file packager output expects to be able to use the `Module.FS` functions before the module is loaded. This PR adds a test for this scenario.
past-due
added a commit
to past-due/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2024
callRuntimeCallbacks passes the actual Module, so use it
sbc100
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2024
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2024
…FC (emscripten-core#21775)" This change was reverted in emscripten-core#21994 because the file_packager generated code expected to be able to use propertied on the Module object that was passed to the constructor/factor function. However that issue was fixed in emscripten-core#22086 so we can try to land this once again.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This avoids leaking of the partially constructed module and means that only way to get access the module instance is via waiting on the promise.
Previously we were attaching all our module properties to the incoming object, but not, as far as I can tell, for any good reason.
In case anybody was actually depending on this, inject thunks into the moduleArg that abort on access with an actionable error.