Use native fs.writeFile in lib/install/save.js #84
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
To write a file, write-file-atomic uses a temp file and replaces the original one by renaming the temp file to its original's name. In some cases this produces an EBUSY error, if the original file cannot be removed/replaced. By using fs.writeFile this issue can be avoided, since it writes the given content directly into the original file and hence does not try to replace it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is a specific downside in using the native writeFile here.
|
There's a reason for doing this atomically, and that's to prevent awkward half-states in case of crashes. These are fairly precious files to be saving and we only want to finalize their write if everything is successful. If EBUSY errors are happening, that should be fixed, not circumvented. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
To write a file, write-file-atomic uses a temp file and replaces the original one by renaming the temp file to its original's name.
In some cases this produces an EBUSY error, if the original file cannot be removed/replaced (e.g. if the file, here package.json is mounted as a volume).
By using fs.writeFile this issue can be avoided, since it writes the given content directly into the original file and hence does not try to replace it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see a specific downside in using the native writeFile here.