feat: add engines and cwd options
#37
Conversation
| @@ -41,7 +46,7 @@ require('yargs') | |||
| }) | |||
| }).catch(e => { | |||
| console.error(e) | |||
| process.exitCode = e.code || 1 | |||
| process.exitCode ||= e.code || 1 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, while I think I agree with this change it actually makes me wonder if this should instead handle process.exit itself?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it could, sure - but this way it will still exit the same, except that it’ll preserve a preexisting nonzero exit code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, that's why I was on board with the change. It just got me thinking about the other thing. If something sets and exit code but doesn't exit I always feel like that is an "action at a distance" which I dont like.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i 100% agree but long ago node shifted into "set the exit code" as idiomatic instead of "exit with a code", and i've given up fighting it :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm, interesting. I would love to read more about that shift. Anyway, I didn't want to block on this either way. Seems like this is good to merge?
No description provided.