repl: reject --watch without script - #64306
Open
iclectic wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
|
Review requested:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
MoLow
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2026
MoLow
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Test failure: 'should watch changes to a file from config file'
Location: test/sequential/test-watch-mode.mjs:872:3
AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: Expected values to be strictly equal:
+ actual - expected
+ '/Users/runner/work/node/node/node/out/Release/node: --watch requires specifying a file\n'
- ''
at TestContext.<anonymous> (file:///Users/runner/work/node/node/node/test/sequential/test-watch-mode.mjs:881:12)
at process.processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:104:5)
at async Test.run (node:internal/test_runner/test:1389:7)
at async Suite.processPendingSubtests (node:internal/test_runner/test:960:7) {
generatedMessage: true,
code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
actual: '/Users/runner/work/node/node/node/out/Release/node: --watch requires specifying a file\n',
expected: '',
operator: 'strictEqual',
diff: 'simple'
}
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author
@aduh95 Thank you for pointing this out. I will look into the failing test and the commit message lint issue, then push an update. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Signed-off-by: iclectic <tansonestost@yahoo.com>
iclectic
force-pushed
the
fix-watch-requires-file
branch
from
5ec6a4f to
52368de
Compare
July 5, 2026 22:10
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
|
Can you incorperate a fix for #64121 here too? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
avivkeller
reviewed
Jul 24, 2026
Comment thread
src/node_options.cc
Comment on lines
-269
to
-270
| } else if (!test_runner && watch_mode_paths.empty() && argv->size() < 1) { | ||
| errors->push_back("--watch requires specifying a file"); |
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we already have this check, why remove it? Wouldn't the better fix be to call this check function before REPL-ing?
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Reviewers
At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.
5 participants
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.
Fixes: #64135
This updates watch mode option validation so that node --watch without a script exits with an option error instead of falling through to the REPL.
Previously, the validation checked whether the argument list had fewer than one item. However, the argument list still contains the Node executable itself, so node --watch was not treated as missing a script. The check now requires at least two arguments, meaning the executable plus a script file.
A regression test has been added to confirm that node --watch:
Tested with: