Skip to content

child_process.exec considering process.env improvement #11861

Closed
@KaiSchwarz-cnic

Description

@KaiSchwarz-cnic
  • Version: At least from 4.8.0 up to 6.10.0
  • Platform: debian 8
  • Subsystem: lib/child_process.js
var exec = require('child_process').exec;

var options = {
    env : {
        NODE_ENV : 'production'
    }
};
exec(command, options, function(err, stdout, stderr) {
  //do something here  
});

The above will loose all other process.env variables.
This might be correct behavior, but on the other hand I personally would have expected that exec does internally something like:

var env;
if (options.env){
    env = Object.assign({}, process.env, options.env);
} else {
   env = Object.assign({}, process.env);
}

and then using it further on. This makes every child process having the process.env with possibility to override specific env vars. I am not familiar with use cases or what other developers would expect, but at least the above way drops out that logic from customer apps and could feel comfortable.
Suppressing that with options.env = false could be an idea too.

So don't understand this as a reported bug, just an improvement idea you might think about.

Thanks!

Activity

added
child_processIssues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem.
feature requestIssues that request new features to be added to Node.js.
on Mar 15, 2017
bnoordhuis

bnoordhuis commented on Mar 15, 2017

@bnoordhuis
Member

Thanks for the suggestion but the problem with that approach is that you can't specify a fully custom environment, you can't avoid inheriting from the existing environment.

As well, backwards compatibility is an issue. The current behavior has been around for a long time, changing it now would probably be quite disruptive to the ecosystem.

cjihrig

cjihrig commented on Mar 15, 2017

@cjihrig
Contributor

Yes, what Ben said. The only option would be another setting like appendEnv or something, but the existing workaround doesn't seem too difficult. The hardest part is remembering that you have to do it (I've been bitten by this before too). I'm going to close the issue as a "won't fix."

KaiSchwarz-cnic

KaiSchwarz-cnic commented on Mar 15, 2017

@KaiSchwarz-cnic
Author

No fear, I understand these reasons, I've basically expected this response. Thanks that you both had an eye on it.

52 remaining items

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    child_processIssues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem.feature requestIssues that request new features to be added to Node.js.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

      child_process.exec considering process.env improvement · Issue #11861 · nodejs/node