Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fs: use fs.access in fs.exists #18618

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fs: use fs.access in fs.exists #18618

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 2 additions & 12 deletions lib/fs.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -427,14 +427,10 @@ fs.exists = function(path, callback) {
}

try {
path = getPathFromURL(path);
validatePath(path);
fs.access(path, fs.FS_OK, suppressedCallback);
} catch (err) {
return callback(false);
}
var req = new FSReqWrap();
req.oncomplete = suppressedCallback;
binding.stat(pathModule.toNamespacedPath(path), req);
};

Object.defineProperty(fs.exists, internalUtil.promisify.custom, {
Expand All @@ -453,13 +449,7 @@ Object.defineProperty(fs.exists, internalUtil.promisify.custom, {
// TODO(joyeecheung): deprecate the never-throw-on-invalid-arguments behavior
fs.existsSync = function(path) {
try {
path = getPathFromURL(path);
validatePath(path);
const ctx = { path };
binding.stat(pathModule.toNamespacedPath(path), undefined, ctx);
if (ctx.errno !== undefined) {
return false;
}
fs.accessSync(path, fs.FS_OK);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it would be good to use a cached fs.accessSync version. That way everything would still work, even if that function gets monkey patched.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That should be picked up in a separate PR, I think.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since we do not use any reference so far and now introduce one, it might break. So I would rather do that in this PR, but it's not blocking for me.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I get the argument but monkeypatching fs is something that already a normal pattern. If we're going to fix it for one method, I'd rather fix it for all of them so there's less inconsistency. I'm happy either way tho. I was going to get this landed but will hold off for now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, is it ok for me to land this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is OK to land but I personally would say it is better to use a cached version as we otherwise might introduce a potential issue that was not there before.

return true;
} catch (e) {
return false;
Expand Down