src: changed stdio_pipes_ to std::vector #23615

niboch · 2018-10-12T18:53:06Z

Checklist

[ x] make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
[ x] commit message follows commit guidelines

addaleax · 2018-10-12T18:55:01Z

src/spawn_sync.cc

-    if (h != nullptr) {
-      r = h->Start();
+  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<SyncProcessStdioPipe>>::iterator iter;
+  for (iter = stdio_pipes_.begin(); iter != stdio_pipes_.end(); ++iter) {


Feel free to use a for (const auto& pipe : stdio_pipes_) loop here :)

I'm going to explicitly request this change.

FTR here are some of the guidelines I'm basing my request on:
ES.55: Avoid the need for range checking
ES.6: Declare names in for-statement initializers and conditions to limit scope
ES.11: Use auto to avoid redundant repetition of type names
ES.20: Always initialize an object

addaleax · 2018-10-12T18:55:16Z

src/spawn_sync.cc

-        stdio_pipes_[i]->Close();
+    std::vector<std::unique_ptr<SyncProcessStdioPipe>>::iterator iter;
+    for (iter = stdio_pipes_.begin(); iter != stdio_pipes_.end(); ++iter) {
+      SyncProcessStdioPipe* pipe = (*iter).get();


ditto here :)

addaleax · 2018-10-14T03:19:01Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17846/

addaleax · 2018-10-16T11:54:24Z

Resume CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17901/

refack · 2018-10-16T14:54:13Z

src/spawn_sync.cc

-    if (h != nullptr) {
-      r = h->Start();
+  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<SyncProcessStdioPipe>>::iterator iter;
+  for (iter = stdio_pipes_.begin(); iter != stdio_pipes_.end(); ++iter) {


I'm going to explicitly request this change.

refack · 2018-10-16T14:56:16Z

Hello @niboch and thank you for the contribution 🥇
I've requested a small change in the code in order for it to comply with our C++ guidelines. I hope you have the time to follow up on this.

BridgeAR · 2018-10-17T08:51:28Z

@refack this can also be resolved while landing. I'll put together a PR that resolves that later on.

BridgeAR · 2018-10-17T08:59:47Z

I just went ahead and pushed a fixup to the branch and dismissed the comment due to that.

Comment addressed.

addaleax · 2018-10-17T10:47:45Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17934/ (:heavy_check_mark:)

refack · 2018-10-17T11:47:14Z

I'm actually of a mind to say that if the author in not engaged, and doesn't follow up, we shouldn't land.
@niboch I do hope you are interested in following up on this.

refack

Give author a change to follow up.

refack · 2018-10-17T11:49:37Z

P.s. please don't dismiss my review without my consent.

BridgeAR · 2018-10-17T14:04:22Z

@refack if you disagree with this, I suggest to open an issue to discuss this in general. But so far we have often helped people to get their PR into Node.js, no matter if we had to "fix" small edges or not (this is especially true for Code & Learn events). In this case the PR itself was technically fine and it's mainly a "style" issue. Thus, I don't think we should block this PR.

jasnell · 2018-10-17T14:18:56Z

@refack ... I agree with @BridgeAR on this. From what I can see, the issues have been addressed on this and the PR should be ready to land.

jasnell · 2018-10-17T14:20:20Z

Ping @nodejs/tsc ... please weigh in on this.

refack · 2018-10-17T14:25:23Z

@refack if you disagree with this, I suggest to open an issue to discuss this in general.

Ack. I agree that it's a tangent moving to #23712

Trott · 2018-10-17T14:36:40Z

Ping @nodejs/tsc ... please weigh in on this.

Agree with @jasnell and @BridgeAR. The question is whether the change is an improvement to the code base, not who did or didn't do what and when. I'm opposed to permitting the blocking PRs on "author engagement" metrics.

That said, caring about author engagement is reasonable. I just don't think it should block a change that is ready to go or trivially close.

refack · 2018-10-17T14:41:07Z

I say give the author time to follow up, don't do the work for them. The whole "edit others PRs" issue is a delicate one, and might even be experienced as condescending or aggressive by some.

tl;dr, let's restore the change set and allow time for the author to follow up.

niboch · 2018-10-17T17:14:03Z

Hey Everyone, Sorry about not responding earlier!

I had fixed it in my local code but did not push as I've been a bit busy at work, Since this is my first pull request I wasn't sure how to amend it and was going to ask how to do that here.

It looks like @BridgeAR already pushed So I assume everything is good? My code was basically the same as what he committed.

refack · 2018-10-17T17:16:22Z

@niboch thank you for following up. I'm happy you are still engaged, and I hope we can land this soon.

Got authors aproval

PR-URL: nodejs#23615 Reviewed-By: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>

refack · 2018-10-17T17:24:47Z

🎉 Congratulations @niboch on getting promoted from

to

I hope you enjoyed the experience, and that we will see more contributions from you in the future 😉

Trott · 2018-10-17T18:33:50Z

Thanks for the contribution! 🎉

(If you're interested in other possible contributions to Node.js but don't have a good idea of where to start looking, some ideas are posted at https://www.nodetodo.org/next-steps/.)

PR-URL: #23615 Reviewed-By: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. child_process Issues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem. labels Oct 12, 2018

rubys approved these changes Oct 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

addaleax approved these changes Oct 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR added the code-and-learn Issues related to the Code-and-Learn events and PRs submitted during the events. label Oct 12, 2018

jasnell approved these changes Oct 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Oct 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

refack previously requested changes Oct 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

refack self-assigned this Oct 16, 2018

addaleax added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Oct 17, 2018

refack previously requested changes Oct 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

refack removed the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Oct 17, 2018

refack mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2018

meta: handling abandoned PRs #23712

Closed

refack approved these changes Oct 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

refack force-pushed the master branch from 8efe2c8 to c979fad Compare October 17, 2018 17:21

refack merged commit c979fad into nodejs:master Oct 17, 2018

refack removed their assignment Oct 20, 2018

codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2018

v10.13.1 proposal #24675

Closed

codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2018

v10.14.2 proposal #24727

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

src: changed stdio_pipes_ to std::vector #23615

src: changed stdio_pipes_ to std::vector #23615

niboch commented Oct 12, 2018

addaleax Oct 12, 2018

refack Oct 16, 2018

refack Oct 16, 2018

addaleax Oct 12, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 14, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 16, 2018

refack Oct 16, 2018

refack commented Oct 16, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

refack left a comment •

edited

Loading

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

jasnell commented Oct 17, 2018

jasnell commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

Trott commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

niboch commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

Trott commented Oct 17, 2018

src: changed stdio_pipes_ to std::vector #23615

src: changed stdio_pipes_ to std::vector #23615

Conversation

niboch commented Oct 12, 2018

Checklist

addaleax Oct 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack Oct 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack Oct 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax Oct 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax commented Oct 14, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 16, 2018

refack Oct 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack commented Oct 16, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 17, 2018 • edited Loading

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

refack left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

BridgeAR commented Oct 17, 2018

jasnell commented Oct 17, 2018

jasnell commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

Trott commented Oct 17, 2018 • edited Loading

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

niboch commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

refack commented Oct 17, 2018

Trott commented Oct 17, 2018

addaleax commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

refack left a comment •

edited

Loading

Trott commented Oct 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading