-
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
esm: merge esm and cjs package.json caches #33229
esm: merge esm and cjs package.json caches #33229
Conversation
@guybedford as discussed earlier in the issue, I tried to keep diffs down. Additionally, I'd move the following checks to
|
adcfd60
to
c14e769
Compare
One test failed on MacOS (Build from tarball / test-tarball-macOS).
It seems that the test does not relate the changes I made. Also, this job finished succefully (same MacOS environment). Can't reproduce this on my Mac as well. Is there a chance that the test is flaky? Is there a way to restrart ci pipeline without a new commit? @guybedford do you have any thought on that? |
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.
Thanks for keeping the diff manageable here, makes a big difference and it's looking really nice and simple.
We should just check the error / missing package.json cases carefully here, but this is looking almost good to go.
@shackijj those further refactorings sound really sensible to me too, if you want to add them in this PR too feel free. |
e149015
to
ce1005a
Compare
@guybedford I decided not to move the functions to a separate module until you approve the last changes that I made. Added test for ERR_INVALID_PACKAGE_CONFIG.
P.S. I believe we could document internalModuleReadJSON a bit better. |
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.
@shackijj this is looking really good and thorough thank you. I think we're nearly there.
Yes I think following the clear specification for when to throw invalid makes more sense than the perf optimization for esm. So the branching seems 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.
Looks great to me, and we just got that negative diff!
//cc @nodejs/modules-active-members if anyone else wants to review this PR.
add test for ERR_INVALID_PACKAGE_CONFIG error Refs: nodejs#30674
4f19db7
to
0227b07
Compare
@guybedford I rebased the branch and changed the history a bit as to follow the commit guideline. Also, the guideline states that I should add 'author ready' label to this PR. It seems that I don't have rights to add a label to PR. Could you please add it? |
test/fixtures/node_modules/invalid-pjson/package.json Refs: nodejs#30674
2b38d67
to
e5f3182
Compare
This looks great to me. //cc @addaleax for C++ review. |
d760659
to
0d947ec
Compare
The tests failed on MacOS with the following error
It seems that the test is not related this fix and might be flaky. |
https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/31456/ is green, this can land. |
Landed in 8f10bb2. |
Relates to: #30674
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes