Skip to content

fs: Add noop stub for FSWatcher.prototype.start #30160

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
lholmquist wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

fs: Add noop stub for FSWatcher.prototype.start #30160

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
750d945
fs: Add noop stub for FSWatcher.prototype.start
lholmquist Oct 29, 2019
9b836a8
squash: add a comment for future maintainers
lholmquist Oct 29, 2019
da2c3b3
squash: Update lib/internal/fs/watchers.js
lholmquist Oct 29, 2019
7df938b
squash: Update lib/internal/fs/watchers.js
lholmquist Oct 29, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
squash: add a comment for future maintainers
  • Loading branch information
@lholmquist
lholmquist committed Oct 29, 2019
commit 9b836a82e9c84bb47af562267c0cb7ef2c411540
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions lib/internal/fs/watchers.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -174,6 +174,10 @@ FSWatcher.prototype[kFSWatchStart] = function(filename,
}
};

// To maximize backword-compatiblity for the end user
Comment thread
lholmquist marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
// a no-op stub method has been added instead of
// totally removing FSWatcher.prototpye.start.
// This should not be documented
Comment thread
lholmquist marked this conversation as resolved.
Resolved
FSWatcher.prototype.start = () => {};

@Trott Trott Oct 29, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it worth adding a comment explaining that this is to maximize backward-compatibility for end users but this function should not be documented? Otherwise, someone else might come along later and remove it as unused or something?

@lholmquist lholmquist Oct 29, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fair point and makes sense. I'll add a little comment


// This method is a noop if the watcher has not been started or
Expand Down