-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
dns: refactor cares_wrap internals #38172
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I guess this is now in conflict with #38184 ? |
same question too. |
No. I've talked to @devsnek about it. That other pr is semver major and makes a number of larger breaking changes. This is semver-patch and is good for everything >= 16.x. |
8d02da3
to
9802d7a
Compare
@jasnell So, just practically speaking … it’s virtually impossible to review PRs that move large chunks of code around and make some minor adjustments in a bunch of places. I’m not sure how to progress here. |
I'm like Anna, I don't know how to tackle this review. |
I'd look at it as a new contribution, largely ignoring the old bits that were changed, focus on the new bits. There's only one test change because one of the internal classes was renamed. There should be absolutely no change in actual behavior. |
@jasnell I think in that case there will be a lot of comments … but yeah, I can do that sometime this week |
The changes that were made are:
There should be no observable functional changes with the exception of the rename of |
I would expect nothing less ;-) This particular bit of code has always been far from perfect and I have many more changes in the works to improve it so a detailed review is helpful. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
9d7a97b
to
2636deb
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@addaleax ... this is generally ready to go. Did you have any more feedback on it before I land later today? |
@jasnell No, feel free to merge 👍 |
Awesome ok. I know there's still a lot in this code that can be improved but with the possible move to getdns in the work, I'm not sure how much more effort we should put into it. I'll merge later on this afternoon. (although, I guess since the getdns change is semver major, and 16 will be around for a while, it would at least make sense to explore some good perf improvements here still) |
Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]>
2636deb
to
13a2a5d
Compare
Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]> PR-URL: #38172 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Landed in bc31dc0 |
Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]> PR-URL: #38172 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]> PR-URL: #38172 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
This was added in nodejs/node#34186 and nodejs/node#38172. Fix upstreamed at nodejs/node#38686.
This was added in nodejs/node#34186 and nodejs/node#38172. Fix upstreamed at nodejs/node#38686.
This is the first step of a significant refactoring of the DNS subsystem. The first step is to simplify and modernize the code structure, eliminate some duplicate code, and apply some of the more modern patterns that we have implemented elsewhere in the code.
Additional refactorings will come in additional PRs.
Signed-off-by: James M Snell [email protected]