-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tools: require function declarations #12711
Conversation
@@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ Returns `true` if the given `object` is a `Function`. Otherwise, returns | |||
const util = require('util'); | |||
|
|||
function Foo() {} | |||
const Bar = function() {}; | |||
const Bar = () => {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.noop
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@abouthiroppy Are you confusing this doc file with a test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mscdex Oops, thanks 😓
.eslintrc.yaml
Outdated
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ rules: | |||
eol-last: 2 | |||
func-call-spacing: 2 | |||
func-name-matching: 2 | |||
func-style: [2, "declaration", {allowArrowFunctions: true}] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can the quotes be omitted here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can the quotes be omitted here?
Yes, indeed. Done!
test/addons-napi/test_async/test.js
Outdated
@@ -9,5 +9,4 @@ test_async.Test(5, common.mustCall(function(err, val) { | |||
process.nextTick(common.mustCall(function() {})); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can it also be common.mustCall()
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can it also be common.mustCall()?
Sure seems like it! Done! Thanks!
@@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ const EventEmitter = require('events'); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
{ | |||
const listen1 = function listen1() {}; | |||
const listen2 = function listen2() {}; | |||
const listen1 = () => {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.noop
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not here or on the line below, and this is actually something that I've worried about for a while: common.noop
doesn't really save us a lot of code and can lead to subtle bugs such as if it is used here.
If used here and the line below, then listen1
and listen2
are the same object, thus invalidating the test!
This could perhaps be fixed by making common.noop
a getter that returns a different no-op function object each time it is called. But I kinda wonder if we might just be better off doing a global find/replace on common.noop
and using () => {}
instead.
/cc @nodejs/testing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Trott on the other hand, test/parallel/test-event-emitter-remove-all-listeners
relies on common.noop
being the same object (discovered that by actually making common.noop
a getter).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@aqrln In that case, I imagine explicitly defining const noop = () => {};
in the test itself would make it clear that everything is intentionally using the same function object and that it's not a mistake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Trott yeah, makes sense. I will follow up with a PR quickly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just simply would not use common.noop
here. In fact, if memory serves correctly, when I opened the common.noop
PR just a few weeks ago I intentionally left this test alone because it did not make sense to use it here... and that is perfectly fine. It's ok not to use it when it doesn't make sense to.
const listen1 = function listen1() {}; | ||
const listen2 = function listen2() {}; | ||
const listen1 = () => {}; | ||
const listen2 = () => {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.noop
?
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ assert.strictEqual( | |||
|
|||
// Function with properties | |||
{ | |||
const value = function() {}; | |||
const value = () => {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.noop
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is another place where common.noop
usage can lead to subtle bugs. The next line adds a property to the object, which would end up adding the property to common.noop
which means possible side effects in other tests.
test/parallel/test-os.js
Outdated
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ console.error(interfaces); | |||
switch (platform) { | |||
case 'linux': | |||
{ | |||
const filter = function(e) { return e.address === '127.0.0.1'; }; | |||
const filter = (e) => { return e.address === '127.0.0.1'; }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
e => e.address === '127.0.0.1'
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure! It's the predominant style and if it inches us closer to being able to enable arrow-body-style
in .eslintrc.yaml
, then I'm all for it.
test/parallel/test-os.js
Outdated
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ switch (platform) { | |||
} | |||
case 'win32': | |||
{ | |||
const filter = function(e) { return e.address === '127.0.0.1'; }; | |||
const filter = (e) => { return e.address === '127.0.0.1'; }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
e => e.address === '127.0.0.1'
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
e => e.address === '127.0.0.1'?
👍
test/parallel/test-preload.js
Outdated
let option = ''; | ||
preloads.forEach(function(preload, index) { | ||
option += '-r ' + preload + ' '; | ||
}); | ||
return option; | ||
}; | ||
|
||
const fixture = function(name) { | ||
const fixture = (name) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
const fixture = name => path.join(common.fixturesDir, name);
?
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ function isWarned(emitter) { | |||
|
|||
// \t does not become part of the input when there is a completer function | |||
fi = new FakeInput(); | |||
const completer = function(line) { | |||
const completer = (line) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
const completer = line => [[], line];
?
f79ef5b
to
fbac2cf
Compare
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations.
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations).
Arrow function and quotation mark nits applied. |
Make `common.noop` a getter that returns a new function object each time the propery is read, not the same one. The old behavior could possibly lead to subtle and hard to catch bugs in some cases. Refs: nodejs#12711 (comment)
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations). PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations). PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations). PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: #12711 Backport-PR-URL: #13774 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations). PR-URL: #12711 Backport-PR-URL: #13774 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: #12711 Backport-PR-URL: #13774 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations). PR-URL: #12711 Backport-PR-URL: #13774 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. PR-URL: nodejs#12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations. Backport-PR-URL: #19447 PR-URL: #12711 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]>
Welp, not sure how this will be received, but since it is the predominant style in our code base and since we are occasionally offering nits to new contributors to use the style to avoid potential confusion over the Temporal Dead Zone....
In lib, doc, and test (but mostly test): Replace function expressions with function declarations in preparation for a lint rule requiring function declarations.
Then: Except for arrow functions, require function declarations instead of function expressions via linting. This is the predominant style in our code base (77 instances of expressions to 2344 instances of declarations).
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
tools test lib doc