-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33k
repl: extract and standardize history from both repl and interface #58225
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
is it correct that you initialize the history manager only if an
onHistoryFileLoaded
is provided? shouldn'tinitialize
always be run and with a no-op callback if there is noonHistoryFileLoaded
? 🤔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.
that's not how the current implementation works. The point of this PR is just to extract existing history functionality into a separate module because we realized that both readline and repl are too dependent on it; anything that can be improved, can be done in a separate PR 😄 .
When I tried doing what you suggested, countless things broke because that callback is only supposed to run in certain particular cases
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Agreed 🙂👍
Thanks for giving that a try 🙂👍
I actually gave this a quick try and it looks like your implemented behavior is diverging from what node currently does, currently if the callback is not provided an error is thrown, with your changes this doesn't happen, see:
(
my-node
points to my local build of node, which I built on your branch)would it be worth it to validate the callback and keep the current behavior? 🤔
PS: node is failing here:
node/lib/internal/repl/history.js
Line 121 in 19e0d47
so it's not 100% clear to me if this erroring is intentional or not... at the very least this makes me thing that an assumption is being made that the callback is always defined 🤔
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.
fascinating, if I always call the callback (even with an empty one, when not provided) I get the exact same error (complaining about
ready
) but just in the test cases. Tbh, I like that it does not crash and it is still usable when not provided 😃