| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Original commit message:
tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol
error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness:
‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare]
2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() <
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
2563 | token_start_internal_value_) {
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PR-URL: nodejs#37573
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
|
FWIW I've not been able to reproduce the warning/failure locally and I'm not sure why test-linux isn't also broken as it also uses --error-on-warn node/.github/workflows/test-linux.yml Line 31 in f8ed755 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
All the recent updates to inspector_protocol have been one-commit-at-a-time so bisecting should find the hopefully-narrow change causing issue rather than a big blobby update that needs to be reverted. Hopefully that's a virtue. (I can see the appeal of "just revert the whole big blobby update and move on".) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Not sure I follow -- this PR isn't reverting anything (other than reverting the revert). Looks like coverage still fails so more investigation needed. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
The action starting failing after a series of 5 commits (and the 6th revert commit mentioned here) landed yesterday that update tools/inspector_protocol. One of those 6 commits probably broke this. (Either that or it was a coincidence of timing.) I'm mentioning that I've been updating tools/inspector_protocol one commit at a time specifically so we can find problems like this, as opposed to doing 50 commits all at once. I guess I'm (weakly) defending my many-small-commits approach on this. :-D |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
(By the way, I'm kicking off some actions in my local repo to hopefully identify the commit that broke things.) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`.
|
I patched up another comparison, which was changed by c3df329. https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/39725/checks?check_run_id=3293574323 has passed 🎉 . |
Sorry, something went wrong.
I wonder if whatever that patching up fixes was eventually fixed upstream. If not, would you be up for submitting a patch there? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
@RaisinTen do you want to add the extra change to https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/deps/inspector_protocol/+/3077907? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - 'benchmark/**' | ||
| - 'deps/**' | ||
| - 'doc/**' | ||
| - 'tools/**' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, that's why this was missed in the PR!
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - 'benchmark/**' | ||
| - 'deps/**' | ||
| - 'doc/**' | ||
| - 'tools/**' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have never used it myself, but based on https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#example-using-positive-and-negative-patterns-1, perhaps this would be better?
| - 'tools/**' | |
| paths: | |
| - '!**.md' | |
| - '!benchmark/**' | |
| - '!deps/**' | |
| - '!doc/**' | |
| - '!tools/**' | |
| - 'tools/inspector_protocol/**' |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops, that was supposed to be a suggestion to replace all of lines 6-11, not just line 11.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe do this separately? I'm not sure without testing, for example, if the suggestion would include stuff under src/**, lib/**, etc. and as the GitHub docs mention the ordering matters.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - 'benchmark/**' | ||
| - 'deps/**' | ||
| - 'doc/**' | ||
| - 'tools/**' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here as prior suggestion to use paths: instead of paths-ignore and use ! to negate each path, and then explicitly add tools/inspector_protocol/**.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM to get the job fixed with or without my suggestions.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks for finding/fixing this! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Original commit message:
tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol
error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness:
‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare]
2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() <
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
2563 | token_start_internal_value_) {
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PR-URL: #37573
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`. PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@richardlau Thank you for the suggestion, added! :) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Original commit message:
tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol
error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness:
‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare]
2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() <
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
2563 | token_start_internal_value_) {
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PR-URL: #37573
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`. PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Original commit message:
tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol
error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness:
‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare]
2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() <
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
2563 | token_start_internal_value_) {
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PR-URL: #37573
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
This is an attempt to see if cherry-picking ffb34b6 (reverted by #39694) fixes the currently broken coverage workflow.
https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/workflows/coverage-linux.yml?query=
Details/home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/obj/gen/src/node/inspector/protocol/Protocol.cpp: In member function ‘void node::inspector::protocol::cbor::CBORTokenizer::ReadNextToken(bool)’: /home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/obj/gen/src/node/inspector/protocol/Protocol.cpp:2567:66: error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare] 2567 | if (!bytes_read || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() < | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2568 | token_start_internal_value_) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/obj/gen/src/node/inspector/protocol/Protocol.cpp:2585:58: error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} and ‘int’ [-Werror=sign-compare] 2585 | if (!bytes_read || token_start_internal_value_ > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2586 | std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max()) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors make[2]: *** [libnode.target.mk:410: /home/runner/work/node/node/out/Release/obj.target/libnode/gen/src/node/inspector/protocol/Protocol.o] Error 1The second commit reenables coverage (the workflow that appears to be broken) for tools as that's where the inspector protocol files are (I forget the reason but it was moved there a long time ago) and the workflow wasn't run on #39694.