-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
lib: move signal event handling into bootstrap/node.js #25859
Conversation
Moves the `process.on()` and `promise.emit()` calls happened during bootstrap for signal events into `bootstrap/node.js` so it's easier to tell the side effects. Drive-by changes: - Moves the signal event re-arming to a point later during the bootstrap - as early as it were it's unlikely that there could be any existing signal events to re-arm for node-report. - Use a Map instead of an Object for signal wraps since it is used as a deletable dictionary anyway.
process.emit('newListener', ev); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
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.
Is there any specific reason for placing this block of code at this location? Why I ask is:
- the re-arming logic was introduced to support
report
- though it supports any code block that registers signals while in the bootstrap process. - right now the signal handler setup is established just before the report is established, making the re-arming un-necessary, at least for report.
- if we place this block of code as early as the process object's creation, we can eliminate the re-arming
- if we place this block as late as towards the exit of setup, the re-arming will be leveraged by any one in the middle.
- right now it seems to be a mix of both
and hence my question on the placement - is there any other considerations for this being here?
Code changes looks good to me.
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.
In fact I wonder if this is ever possible to trigger...as far as I can tell no signals events should be registered at this point (inside node.js) as now the stdio streams are lazily instantiated, and the branch has been yellow (never executed) in the coverage report
Landed in 041424f |
Moves the `process.on()` and `promise.emit()` calls happened during bootstrap for signal events into `bootstrap/node.js` so it's easier to tell the side effects. Drive-by changes: - Moves the signal event re-arming to a point later during the bootstrap - as early as it were it's unlikely that there could be any existing signal events to re-arm for node-report. - Use a Map instead of an Object for signal wraps since it is used as a deletable dictionary anyway. PR-URL: #25859 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Moves the `process.on()` and `promise.emit()` calls happened during bootstrap for signal events into `bootstrap/node.js` so it's easier to tell the side effects. Drive-by changes: - Moves the signal event re-arming to a point later during the bootstrap - as early as it were it's unlikely that there could be any existing signal events to re-arm for node-report. - Use a Map instead of an Object for signal wraps since it is used as a deletable dictionary anyway. PR-URL: #25859 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Moves the
process.on()
andpromise.emit()
calls happened duringbootstrap for signal events into
bootstrap/node.js
so it's easierto tell the side effects.
Drive-by changes:
the bootstrap - as early as it were it's unlikely that there
could be any existing signal events to re-arm for node-report.
as a deletable dictionary anyway.
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes