-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.7k
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
cluster: properly handle --inspect-{brk,port} #11386
Conversation
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.
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.
LGTM with a question.
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ if (cluster.isMaster) { | |||
fork(4, ['--inspect', '--debug']); | |||
fork(5, [`--debug=${debuggerPort}`, '--inspect']); | |||
fork(6, ['--inspect', `--debug-port=${debuggerPort}`]); | |||
fork(7, [`--inspect-port=${debuggerPort}`]); | |||
fork(8, ['--inspect', `--inspect-port=${debuggerPort}`]); |
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.
The omission of --inspect-brk
is intentional?
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.
same question now
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.
IIRC, the brk
flags interfere with the child process aspect of the test.
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.
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.
@bnoordhuis @Fishrock123 is this disposition acceptable to you, or do you think that #11420 needs to be addressed before this lands?
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.
This PR is good to go, IMO.
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.
LGTM. Thanks!
PR-URL: #11386 Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Josh Gavant <josh.gavant@outlook.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Landedin 389b9e4 |
PR-URL: #11386 Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Josh Gavant <josh.gavant@outlook.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
cluster wasn't properly handling the
--inspect-brk=${port}
and--inspect-port=${port}
arguments to the children.Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
cluster, test