[v14.x] node-api: handle no support for external buffers #45616
Conversation
Refs: electron/electron#35801 Refs: nodejs/abi-stable-node#441 Electron recently dropped support for external buffers. Provide a way for addon authors to: - hide the methods to create external buffers so they can avoid using them if they want the broadest compatibility. - call the methods that create external buffers at runtime to check if external buffers are supported and either use them or not based on the return code. Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <mdawson@devrus.com> PR-URL: nodejs#45181 Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <nodecorelab@gmail.com>
|
Review requested:
|
nodejs-github-bot
added
c++
|
@legendecas if you could review this backport that would be great. |
richardlau
changed the title
github-actions
bot
removed
the
request-ci
| @@ -928,6 +928,10 @@ napi_status napi_create_external_buffer(napi_env env, | |||
| NAPI_PREAMBLE(env); | |||
| CHECK_ARG(env, result); | |||
|
|
|||
| #if defined(V8_ENABLE_SANDBOX) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't find this definition on v14.x. Maybe we can simply remove this change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That could make sense, I think we wanted the backport so that people could compile on the oldest LTS and use the value for the error code.
They question is whether it's better to keep it closer to the original PR even if the define will never be set or to remove it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@richardlau do you have an opinion from the Releaser perspective? I'm happy either way. We can remove the define or leave it in to make it a "backport" versus a "backport" with modifications whichever is easier/preferrable for getting it landed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mhdawson No preference either way. I think it's very unlikely V8_ENABLE_SANDBOX would be introduced to Node.js 14 if it isn't already there given that Node.js 14 is in maintenance and will go End-of-Life in April.
cc @nodejs/lts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@legendecas since @richardlau figures there is no preference from the Releasers perspective I don't don't feel strongly either. I'm happy to leave as it as I don't think it hurts anything but also happy to remove that i you think that's best.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with both ways. Thanks for the clarification.
| @@ -928,6 +928,10 @@ napi_status napi_create_external_buffer(napi_env env, | |||
| NAPI_PREAMBLE(env); | |||
| CHECK_ARG(env, result); | |||
|
|
|||
| #if defined(V8_ENABLE_SANDBOX) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with both ways. Thanks for the clarification.
|
@richardlau I'll leave as is given the discussion. |
Refs: electron/electron#35801 Refs: nodejs/abi-stable-node#441 Electron recently dropped support for external buffers. Provide a way for addon authors to: - hide the methods to create external buffers so they can avoid using them if they want the broadest compatibility. - call the methods that create external buffers at runtime to check if external buffers are supported and either use them or not based on the return code. Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <mdawson@devrus.com> PR-URL: #45181 Backport-PR-URL: #45616 Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <nodecorelab@gmail.com>
|
Landed in 2dbeb88. |
Refs: electron/electron#35801 Refs: nodejs/abi-stable-node#441
Electron recently dropped support for external
buffers. Provide a way for addon authors to:
Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson mdawson@devrus.com
PR-URL: #45181
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu legendecas@gmail.com
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung nodecorelab@gmail.com