doc,fs: appendFile as an alias, and fix docs #31235
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When operating on a FileHandle, the file has already been opened with the flag given as an option to fs.promises.open(). This means defaulting to 'a' has no effect here, and FileHandle#appendFile turns out to exactly be an alias of writeFile. This is now explicit, saving a stack frame, object copy and assignment.
* Remove `mode` and `flag` options for all three functions, since they all ignore those options. * Remove mention of `path` argument for `readFile`, since it isn't actually an option to this method. * Clarify that for file handles, `appendFile` and `writeFile` are equivalent.
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
fs
|
@nodejs/fs |
bengl
changed the title
Trott
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2020
|
@nodejs/collaborators This can use some reviews. |
|
Commit message nit for when this lands: |
antsmartian
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2020
|
Landed in a566c05...d4fc59d |
Trott
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2020
When operating on a FileHandle, the file has already been opened with the flag given as an option to fs.promises.open(). This means defaulting to 'a' has no effect here, and FileHandle#appendFile turns out to exactly be an alias of writeFile. This is now explicit, saving a stack frame, object copy and assignment. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
Trott
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2020
* Remove `mode` and `flag` options for all three functions, since they all ignore those options. * Remove mention of `path` argument for `readFile`, since it isn't actually an option to this method. * Clarify that for file handles, `appendFile` and `writeFile` are equivalent. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
When operating on a FileHandle, the file has already been opened with the flag given as an option to fs.promises.open(). This means defaulting to 'a' has no effect here, and FileHandle#appendFile turns out to exactly be an alias of writeFile. This is now explicit, saving a stack frame, object copy and assignment. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
* Remove `mode` and `flag` options for all three functions, since they all ignore those options. * Remove mention of `path` argument for `readFile`, since it isn't actually an option to this method. * Clarify that for file handles, `appendFile` and `writeFile` are equivalent. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
Merged
codebytere
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2020
When operating on a FileHandle, the file has already been opened with the flag given as an option to fs.promises.open(). This means defaulting to 'a' has no effect here, and FileHandle#appendFile turns out to exactly be an alias of writeFile. This is now explicit, saving a stack frame, object copy and assignment. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
codebytere
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2020
* Remove `mode` and `flag` options for all three functions, since they all ignore those options. * Remove mention of `path` argument for `readFile`, since it isn't actually an option to this method. * Clarify that for file handles, `appendFile` and `writeFile` are equivalent. PR-URL: #31235 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The first commit here changes
filehandle.appendFile()so that it simply calls the same backingasyncfunction aswriteFile. This is because when we're dealing with file handles, it's already open, so no flags are changed. This makes the functions equivalent. This was already true, but this change makes it explicit, saving a stack frame and a few operations.The second commit updates the docs to reflect this, and makes a few corrections to the
filehandle.[read|write|append]Filefunctions. In particular, none of them do anything withmodeorflagin the options objects, so they're removed from the documentation. In addition,readFilewas making reference to apathargument that isn't there.Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes