Review requested:

• @nodejs/loaders

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.09%. Comparing base (065c9b0) to head (ec42126).
⚠️ Report is 416 commits behind head on v24.x-staging.

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           v24.x-staging   #62568      +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage          90.10%   90.09%   -0.02%     
=================================================
  Files                667      670       +3     
  Lines             199019   200417    +1398     
  Branches           38911    39093     +182     
=================================================
+ Hits              179335   180565    +1230     
- Misses             12040    12177     +137     
- Partials            7644     7675      +31     

... and 174 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.

Am I correct that this lands cleanly on the staging branch? If so, let's close this, it's easier to not have to deal with a PR if we can avoid it

@aduh95 yes both of these should land cleanly. Do you mean to just use backport-requested label then instead on the originals? I just really want to ensure these don't get missed.

Do you mean to just use backport-requested label

No, those labels are meant for backporters to request the PR author to open a manual backport.

I just really want to ensure these don't get missed.

There's nothing to do, if it doesn't land cleanly, the backporter should comment on the PR asking for a manual backport. There's the lts-watch-v24.x PRs that may need to be released in v24.x label to signify to the releaser that PR is important, but it's hardly useful for the most recent LTS line