| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
|
If this gets push back, #13703 could be considered, as it's even less major. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, although the deprecation message may confuse people at first glance just because it doesn't say what they should be using exitedAfterDisconnect in place of (I get that is the point though).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM if Ci is green
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we consider removing the phrase from the error code?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately I think it's necessary for context, otherwise those seeing the deprecation error and not having any context won't really have a clue what it is about, or any ability to find out. The whole reason deprecations.md exists is to provide that context when necessary.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it can be a reference though right? like give you a url to check the extended documentation?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the extended documentation. This message is in deprecations.md, this is not the warning message that is printed to the console.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@jasnell I can't think of any noticeable negative consequnces of this spefic PR, but I am not fully convinced that the property should be entirely removed in 9.0 yet. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure yet that the correct action would be to remove the property entirely in 9.0.
Apart from this comment, this change looks fine.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: an unfortunate decision was made to add a boolean property with the name -> there was a boolean property named
unfortunate appears a couple sentences later so we can remove the repetition of the word here without losing content
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can update that in whichever one of the PRs is landed first then cherry-pick the updated commit here.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will cause people to see warnings like (node:4680) DeprecationWarning: Please use worker.exitedAfterDisconnect instead., which is completely uninformative.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understood, and in general I agree that it's not ideal, but this is about finding a compromise that avoids the original problem. The reason deprecation codes were added is to provide a mechanism for finding the context if necessary.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If someone sees the warning and decides to find the context, they'll see the word anyway. The only case where hiding it here would help is when the warning is perpetually ignored.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will be (node:4680) [DEP0007] DeprecationWarning: Please use worker.exitedAfterDisconnect instead. and that easily googleable.
We can't eliminate all references, but putting it one step further is good IMHO.
(at least it won't be repeated over and over in the logs)
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would be repeated over and over in the logs, as the warning is one-time per process.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's the paradox of this whole situation... see (content warning) Unitech/pm2#2780
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
ping @nodejs/ctc |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Make deprecated property non-enumerable, remove from docs
|
Updated the language in the docs a bit. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI failure is unrelated. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
PR-URL: #13704 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #13704 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Make deprecated property non-enumerable, remove from docs PR-URL: #13704 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
This goes along with #13702 and is part of the alternative for #13684
Mark the deprecated API non-enumerable, remove from docs, and update the deprecation message.
Technically, marking an API non-enumerable would be semver-major, but I'm proposing this as a semver-patch. The deprecated API is still there, existing code should not break as it's extremely unlikely that existing uses of the API are depending on it being enumerable.
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
cluster