-
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
tools: fix inspector_protocol compiler warnings #39725
Conversation
Original commit message: tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare] 2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() < | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2563 | token_start_internal_value_) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PR-URL: nodejs#37573 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
FWIW I've not been able to reproduce the warning/failure locally and I'm not sure why test-linux isn't also broken as it also uses node/.github/workflows/test-linux.yml Line 31 in f8ed755
|
All the recent updates to inspector_protocol have been one-commit-at-a-time so bisecting should find the hopefully-narrow change causing issue rather than a big blobby update that needs to be reverted. Hopefully that's a virtue. (I can see the appeal of "just revert the whole big blobby update and move on".) |
Not sure I follow -- this PR isn't reverting anything (other than reverting the revert). Looks like coverage still fails so more investigation needed. |
The action starting failing after a series of 5 commits (and the 6th revert commit mentioned here) landed yesterday that update I guess I'm (weakly) defending my many-small-commits approach on this. :-D |
(By the way, I'm kicking off some actions in my local repo to hopefully identify the commit that broke things.) |
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`.
I patched up another comparison, which was changed by c3df329. https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/39725/checks?check_run_id=3293574323 has passed 🎉 . |
I wonder if whatever that patching up fixes was eventually fixed upstream. If not, would you be up for submitting a patch there? |
@RaisinTen do you want to add the extra change to https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/deps/inspector_protocol/+/3077907? |
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ on: | |||
- 'benchmark/**' | |||
- 'deps/**' | |||
- 'doc/**' | |||
- 'tools/**' |
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.
Ah, that's why this was missed in the PR!
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ on: | |||
- 'benchmark/**' | |||
- 'deps/**' | |||
- 'doc/**' | |||
- 'tools/**' |
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.
Have never used it myself, but based on https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#example-using-positive-and-negative-patterns-1, perhaps this would be better?
- 'tools/**' | |
paths: | |
- '!**.md' | |
- '!benchmark/**' | |
- '!deps/**' | |
- '!doc/**' | |
- '!tools/**' | |
- 'tools/inspector_protocol/**' |
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.
Whoops, that was supposed to be a suggestion to replace all of lines 6-11, not just line 11.
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.
Maybe do this separately? I'm not sure without testing, for example, if the suggestion would include stuff under src/**
, lib/**
, etc. and as the GitHub docs mention the ordering matters.
@@ -18,7 +17,6 @@ on: | |||
- 'benchmark/**' | |||
- 'deps/**' | |||
- 'doc/**' | |||
- 'tools/**' |
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 here as prior suggestion to use paths:
instead of paths-ignore
and use !
to negate each path, and then explicitly add tools/inspector_protocol/**
.
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 to get the job fixed with or without my suggestions.
Thanks for finding/fixing this! |
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.
Original commit message: tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare] 2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() < | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2563 | token_start_internal_value_) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PR-URL: #37573 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`. PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Landed in 13029cf...3b1e6f2 |
@richardlau Thank you for the suggestion, added! :) |
Original commit message: tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare] 2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() < | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2563 | token_start_internal_value_) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PR-URL: #37573 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
The inspector protocol currently lives in `tools`. PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Original commit message: tools: fix compiler warning in inspector_protocol error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long unsigned int’} [-Werror=sign-compare] 2562 | if (!success || std::numeric_limits<int32_t>::max() < | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 2563 | token_start_internal_value_) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PR-URL: #37573 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #39725 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
This is an attempt to see if cherry-picking ffb34b6 (reverted by #39694) fixes the currently broken coverage workflow.
https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/workflows/coverage-linux.yml?query=
The second commit reenables coverage (the workflow that appears to be broken) for
tools
as that's where the inspector protocol files are (I forget the reason but it was moved there a long time ago) and the workflow wasn't run on #39694.