src,lib: rename FSReqWrap to FSReqCallback #21971
Conversation
nodejs-github-bot
added
c++
|
The change to the binding and to the resource types are potentially breaking so this may be semver-major. cc @nodejs/diagnostics Does it matter if the async resource type |
|
I understand the reason behind this, but doesn't that mean we'll need to change the name of every wrapper once its API get a promise interface? If that's the case, we might as well change everything at once to avoid multiple breaking changes (the changes to async_hooks are semver-major IMO). |
@mmarchini Unfortunately, it depends. For example, the PR to add the promisified |
mcollina
added
the
semver-major
|
FWIW, putting |
|
The doc in async hooks states "The type is a string identifying the type of resource that caused init to be called. Generally, it will correspond to the name of the resource's constructor.". Based on this we have to leak implementation details. On the other hand there is no detailed specification which async resources exist (within node core) and what exactly they represent. I would also prefer to have a cleaner separation of implementation details and async hook resource names. As async hooks are still experimental such an API change should be currently not semver major to my understanding - but will be once they are no longer experimental. |
|
Not technically semver-major, no, but async_hooks are starting to be used extensively so we should still be careful and considerate about such changes. |
|
Uh … can we split this into a backportable part and a semver-major change for the |
Given that FSReqPromise does not inherit from FSReqWrap, FSReqWrap should be renamed FSReqCallback to better describe what it does. First of a few upcoming `fs` refactorings :)
|
Updated @addaleax (note to self/future backporters -- the second commit is the semver-major one :)) |
|
Landed in 27a5338...f479050, thank you for the reviews! |
Given that FSReqPromise does not inherit from FSReqWrap, FSReqWrap should be renamed FSReqCallback to better describe what it does. First of a few upcoming `fs` refactorings :) PR-URL: #21971 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #21971 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Correct async hooks resource names to match the implementation: `FSREQWRAP` => `FSREQCALLBACK` `TCPSERVER` => `TCPSERVERWRAP` PR-URL: nodejs#24001 Refs: nodejs#21971 Refs: nodejs#17157 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Correct async hooks resource names to match the implementation: `FSREQWRAP` => `FSREQCALLBACK` `TCPSERVER` => `TCPSERVERWRAP` PR-URL: #24001 Refs: #21971 Refs: #17157 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Correct async hooks resource names to match the implementation: `TCPSERVER` => `TCPSERVERWRAP` Backport-PR-URL: #24683 PR-URL: #24001 Refs: #21971 Refs: #17157 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Correct async hooks resource names to match the implementation: `TCPSERVER` => `TCPSERVERWRAP` Backport-PR-URL: #24683 PR-URL: #24001 Refs: #21971 Refs: #17157 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Given that FSReqPromise does not inherit from FSReqWrap, FSReqWrap
should be renamed FSReqCallback to better describe what it does.
First of a few upcoming
fsrefactorings :)Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes