nodejs
lib: resolve the issue of not adhering to the specified buffersize
ref: #55764
We create a queueHandler, and in every iteration we execute the handlers in the queueHandler until we get a non-null result.
@Ethan-Arrowood, please take a look at the PR when you have a chance. It should be ready for merge unless some any issues is found!
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 80.48780% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 88.53%. Comparing base (
556f1ae) to head (dba2d27). Report is 1003 commits behind head on main.
| Files with missing lines | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| lib/internal/fs/dir.js | 80.48% | 8 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #55896 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.00% 88.53% +0.53%
==========================================
Files 656 657 +1
Lines 188999 190413 +1414
Branches 35989 36554 +565
==========================================
+ Hits 166331 168589 +2258
+ Misses 15848 15007 -841
+ Partials 6820 6817 -3
| Files with missing lines | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| lib/internal/fs/dir.js | 95.05% <80.48%> (-2.17%) |
:arrow_down: |
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
- :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.
![codecov[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/254?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Looking good. Have you tested it locally by running the relevant fs readdir and opendir recursive test files?
I'm not really sure if this needs a unique test as you are more just improving an existing solution.
I requested a CI run now and we'll see how this does.
Thanks for the contribution!
Looking good. Have you tested it locally by running the relevant fs readdir and opendir recursive test files?
Yes, I've tested it. It should be good unless I missed something.
I'm not really sure if this needs a unique test as you are more just improving an existing solution.
Agreed. I don't think we need a new test since, as you mentioned, nothing fundamentally new was added.
Looks good to me, and CI is passing! Thank you, lets gets this merged.
Commit Queue failed
- Loading data for nodejs/node/pull/55896 ✔ Done loading data for nodejs/node/pull/55896 ----------------------------------- PR info ------------------------------------ Title lib: resolve the issue of not adhering to the specified buffersize (#55896) ⚠ Could not retrieve the email or name of the PR author's from user's GitHub profile! Branch cu8code:55723 -> nodejs:main Labels fs, needs-ci Commits 1 - lib: resolve the issue of not adhering to the specified buffer size Committers 1 - cu8code <[email protected]> PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896 Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/55764 Reviewed-By: Ethan Arrowood <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Generated metadata ------------------------------ PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896 Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/55764 Reviewed-By: Ethan Arrowood <[email protected]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ℹ This PR was created on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:27:03 GMT ✔ Approvals: 1 ✔ - Ethan Arrowood (@Ethan-Arrowood): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896#pullrequestreview-2470703507 ✘ Last GitHub CI failed ℹ Last Full PR CI on 2024-11-30T01:14:02Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63800/ - Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/63800/ ✔ Last Jenkins CI successful -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ✔ Aborted `git node land` session in /home/runner/work/node/node/.ncuhttps://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/12093348479
Commit Queue failed
- Loading data for nodejs/node/pull/55896 ✔ Done loading data for nodejs/node/pull/55896 ----------------------------------- PR info ------------------------------------ Title lib: resolve the issue of not adhering to the specified buffersize (#55896) ⚠ Could not retrieve the email or name of the PR author's from user's GitHub profile! Branch cu8code:55723 -> nodejs:main Labels fs, needs-ci Commits 1 - lib: resolve the issue of not adhering to the specified buffer size Committers 1 - cu8code <[email protected]> PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896 Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/55764 Reviewed-By: Ethan Arrowood <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Generated metadata ------------------------------ PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896 Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/55764 Reviewed-By: Ethan Arrowood <[email protected]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ℹ This PR was created on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:27:03 GMT ✔ Approvals: 1 ✔ - Ethan Arrowood (@Ethan-Arrowood): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55896#pullrequestreview-2489049523 ✘ Last GitHub CI failed ℹ Last Full PR CI on 2024-12-09T15:00:05Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/63954/ - Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/63954/ ✔ Last Jenkins CI successful -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ✔ Aborted `git node land` session in /home/runner/work/node/node/.ncuhttps://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/12241884962
Keep an eye on that CI run. Lets make sure nothing is failing because of these changes. I haven't ran the CI recently so I'm unaware of current known flakey tests, but they are usually pretty obvious.
@edilson258 I do not plan to / know how to fix the failing tests. If you can help, I would appreciate it!
Is there a way of accessing the CI logs or any other way of seeing the failure reason?? @Ethan-Arrowood ?
Once the CI runs (again fresh) it will comment the result here. That link will be show any failures and details as to why
Great work @0hmX ! Thank you for your contribution - apologies it took so long to land! Next one should be faster 🏎️