src: fix InspectorStarted macro guard #13167

danbev · 2017-05-23T07:46:02Z

Currently the InspectorStarted function is guarded by the else clause of
the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM macro. If node is configured --without-ssl then
NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM will be 1 but the nested HAVE_INSPECTOR macro
will not be 0 which will lead to that there will be no InspectorStarted
function defined.

If building --without-inspector or --without-ssl the following
compilation error will occur:

../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in
'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)'
  if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() &&
!v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env))
                                            ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in
'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)'
  if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() &&
!v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env))
                                            ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
1 error generated.

This commit adds a separate if preprocessor directive to catch the case
when either --without-ssl/--without-inspector and --without-v8-platform
combinations are used to configure node.

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

danbev · 2017-05-23T07:46:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8244/

bnoordhuis · 2017-05-23T08:33:46Z

Random observations about the src/node.cc in master:

The call to v8_platform.StartInspector() is guarded by a #ifdef HAVE_INSPECTOR but the call to v8_platform.InspectorStarted() is not.
The v8_platform.StartInspector() for the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM == 0 case is never called because of point 1.
There are several (guarded) calls to env->inspector_agent()->IsStarted(), there is only one call to v8_platform.InspectorStarted(). The patch below reduces the line count and is arguably more straightforward.
The logic in node.gyp and node.gypi seems wrong: if the inspector depends on libplatform, then node_use_v8_platform=="false" should imply v8_enable_inspector==0 - i.e., if NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM == 0, then logically HAVE_INSPECTOR == 0.

I think if you enforce 4, you'll be able to cut quite a bit of code and ifdef logic. Good idea, bad idea?

diff --git a/src/node.cc b/src/node.cc
index a5c86d4..81e1dd7 100644
--- a/src/node.cc
+++ b/src/node.cc
@@ -260,10 +260,6 @@ static struct {
                       const node::DebugOptions& options) {
     return env->inspector_agent()->Start(platform_, script_path, options);
   }
-
-  bool InspectorStarted(Environment *env) {
-    return env->inspector_agent()->IsStarted();
-  }
 #endif  // HAVE_INSPECTOR
 
   void StartTracingAgent() {
@@ -293,9 +289,6 @@ static struct {
                     "so event tracing is not available.\n");
   }
   void StopTracingAgent() {}
-  bool InspectorStarted(Environment *env) {
-    return false;
-  }
 #endif  // !NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM
 } v8_platform;
 
@@ -4467,8 +4460,13 @@ inline int Start(Isolate* isolate, IsolateData* isolate_data,
   const char* path = argc > 1 ? argv[1] : nullptr;
   StartDebug(&env, path, debug_options);
 
-  if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env))
-    return 12;  // Signal internal error.
+  if (debug_options.inspector_enabled()) {
+#if HAVE_INSPECTOR
+    if (!env->inspector_agent()->IsStarted()) return 12;  // Internal error.
+#else
+    return 12;  // Internal error.
+#endif
+  }
 
   env.set_abort_on_uncaught_exception(abort_on_uncaught_exception);

danbev · 2017-05-23T11:16:44Z

I think if you enforce 4, you'll be able to cut quite a bit of code and ifdef logic. Good idea, bad idea?

Sounds good to me. I'll take a look at this.

Just for my understanding of when --without-v8-platform would be used. When configured, the responsibility of setting the platform (v8::V8::InitializePlatform(platform_);) is up to the caller and building node --without-v8-platform is expected to fail with error from V8 stating this. I'm guessing this is use by someone embedding node, perhaps Electron?

refack · 2017-05-23T12:46:36Z

src/node.cc

@@ -293,10 +293,13 @@ static struct {
                    "so event tracing is not available.\n");
  }
  void StopTracingAgent() {}
+#endif  // !NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM
+
+#if NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM == 0 || HAVE_INSPECTOR == 0


shouldn't it be #if !defined(NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM) || !defined(HAVE_INSPECTOR)?

I thought so too, but we need to check the value as the names will always be defined as macros.

sorry to nag, but what about #if !NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM || !HAVE_INSPECTOR

sorry to nag, but what about #if !NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM || !HAVE_INSPECTOR

Yes, that works as it is equivalent to the current statement. I'm fine with either.

I'll make this change.

bnoordhuis · 2017-05-23T13:09:06Z

Just for my understanding of when --without-v8-platform would be used. When configured, the responsibility of setting the platform (v8::V8::InitializePlatform(platform_);) is up to the caller and building node --without-v8-platform is expected to fail with error from V8 stating this. I'm guessing this is use by someone embedding node, perhaps Electron?

Yes, correct.

bnoordhuis

This PR LGTM as a stop-gap measure, by the way.

kfarnung

Ran into this problem in my fork and had a similar fix in mind. 👍

Currently the InspectorStarted function is guarded by the else clause of the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM macro. If node is configured --without-ssl then NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM will be 1 but the nested HAVE_INSPECTOR macro will not be 0 which will lead to that there will be no InspectorStarted function defined. If building --without-inspector or --without-ssl the following compilation error will occur: ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ 1 error generated. This commit adds a separate if preprocessor directive to catch the case when either --without-ssl/--without-inspector and --without-v8-platform combinations are used to configure node. PR-URL: nodejs/node#13167 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Kyle Farnung <[email protected]>

Currently the InspectorStarted function is guarded by the else clause of the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM macro. If node is configured --without-ssl then NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM will be 1 but the nested HAVE_INSPECTOR macro will not be 0 which will lead to that there will be no InspectorStarted function defined. If building --without-inspector or --without-ssl the following compilation error will occur: ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ 1 error generated. This commit adds a separate if preprocessor directive to catch the case when either --without-ssl/--without-inspector and --without-v8-platform combinations are used to configure node.

danbev · 2017-05-26T08:44:43Z

If there are no objections I'd like to merge this and then follow up with a separate PR when I have a little more time (hopefully next week) to address the comments from @bnoordhuis.

danbev · 2017-05-26T08:45:20Z

Rebased CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8318/

Currently the InspectorStarted function is guarded by the else clause of the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM macro. If node is configured --without-ssl then NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM will be 1 but the nested HAVE_INSPECTOR macro will not be 0 which will lead to that there will be no InspectorStarted function defined. If building --without-inspector or --without-ssl the following compilation error will occur: ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ 1 error generated. This commit adds a separate if preprocessor directive to catch the case when either --without-ssl/--without-inspector and --without-v8-platform combinations are used to configure node. PR-URL: nodejs#13167 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>

danbev · 2017-05-27T03:59:42Z

Landed in ae5e65c

Currently the InspectorStarted function is guarded by the else clause of the NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM macro. If node is configured --without-ssl then NODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM will be 1 but the nested HAVE_INSPECTOR macro will not be 0 which will lead to that there will be no InspectorStarted function defined. If building --without-inspector or --without-ssl the following compilation error will occur: ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ../src/node.cc:4470:57: error: no member named 'InspectorStarted' in 'node::(anonymous struct at ../src/node.cc:241:8)' if (debug_options.inspector_enabled() && !v8_platform.InspectorStarted(&env)) ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ 1 error generated. This commit adds a separate if preprocessor directive to catch the case when either --without-ssl/--without-inspector and --without-v8-platform combinations are used to configure node. PR-URL: #13167 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>

MylesBorins · 2017-07-17T17:03:08Z

This does not land cleanly in LTS. Please feel free to manually backport. Please also feel free to replace the backport request label with do-not-land if it shouldn't land

nodejs-github-bot added the c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. label May 23, 2017

refack reviewed May 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

mscdex added the inspector Issues and PRs related to the V8 inspector protocol label May 23, 2017

bnoordhuis approved these changes May 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

kfarnung approved these changes May 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

kfarnung mentioned this pull request May 25, 2017

build: restore intl check for inspector nodejs/node-chakracore#262

Merged

2 tasks

danbev force-pushed the move-inspectorstarted branch from 117cdb1 to 7bb3c4e Compare May 26, 2017 08:44

refack approved these changes May 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

danbev closed this May 27, 2017

jasnell mentioned this pull request May 28, 2017

8.0.0 Release Proposal #12220

Closed

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2017

Auditing for 6.11.1 nodejs/Release#230

Closed

3 tasks

danbev deleted the move-inspectorstarted branch June 28, 2017 05:36

MylesBorins added the lts-watch-v6.x label Jul 17, 2017

MylesBorins added the backport-requested-v6.x label Jul 17, 2017

danbev added dont-land-on-v6.x and removed backport-requested-v6.x labels Aug 15, 2017

Uh oh!

src: fix InspectorStarted macro guard #13167

src: fix InspectorStarted macro guard #13167

Uh oh!

Conversation

danbev commented May 23, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Uh oh!

danbev commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

bnoordhuis commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

refack May 23, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbev May 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

refack May 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbev May 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbev May 26, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnoordhuis commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kfarnung left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbev commented May 26, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented May 26, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented May 27, 2017

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Jul 17, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

refack May 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading