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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
fs: add rm method #35494
fs: add rm method #35494
Changes from 1 commit
9845d05
6c26d17
f0f37b1
b1fa541
641bc3b
adbc955
7aca540
384a7e9
1876684
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I think we should use the async validation here, otherwise we're going to create a bottleneck when performing many
rm
operations, you can do something like this: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.
isn't this still creating the same bottleneck tho, it's just deferring the result? a
new Promise
executor runs synchronously.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.
@ljharb my bad, I meant:
i.e., not using the
sync
version of the validation.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.
I implemented this a few days ago and I did catch that mistake in your suggested change @bcoe. I'm not sure if that changes the point @ljharb raised.
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.
This hasn't been updated yet, but yes, @bcoe's updated suggestion would address my point. I'd also say that it's worth adding a custom promisify implementation to
validateRmOptions
, and then useawait promisify(validateRmOptions)(path, options, false)
instead?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.
love it 😄