Review requested:

• @nodejs/path

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.15%. Comparing base (9041ad0) to head (e7ed644).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #61269      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.12%   90.15%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         743      743              
  Lines      242324   242368      +44     
  Branches    45629    45635       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits       218396   218501     +105     
+ Misses      15440    15359      -81     
- Partials     8488     8508      +20     

... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Hey, no interest?

@nodejs/path

@nodejs/path @nodejs/fs

I am wondering, why not just expose minimatch? It's already vendored, right?

Vendoring is an implem detail, not a commitment and I'd prefer to not couple the Node's API to a third-party dependency.

Goal here is to provide stable, cross-platform glob semantic in Node rather than exposing raw minimatch behavior. windowsPathsNoEscape and magicalBraces are good illustrations of this.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/72403/

Hey, is there something blocking this PR?

The test cases don't include patterns containing parentheses ( and ). Is this intentional?

No, I'll add some

@Xstoudi Please rebase

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔  Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/72403/
[SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..."    
  https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/30165172379

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔  Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/72403/
[SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..."    
  https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/30182123250

This needs a rebase to resolve conflicts in test/parallel/test-path-glob.js

Should this be reconsidered around #65392? @avivkeller

If needed, since we won't have an escape function, this PR can be updated to vendor it's own escaping implementation, it's quite simple, it's just stringToEscape.replace(/[?*()[\]{}]/g, '[$&]')

If needed, since we won't have an escape function, this PR can be updated to vendor it's own escaping implementation, it's quite simple, it's just stringToEscape.replace(/[?*()[\]{}]/g, '[$&]')

nice, that's more or less what #61258 gave as an example plus closing symbols.