-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.6k
module: implement synchronous module evaluate hooks #57139
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
Open
joyeecheung
wants to merge
1
commit into
nodejs:main
Choose a base branch
from
joyeecheung:evaluate-hooks
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
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
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.
I feel like a signature that would be more consistent with the other hooks would be
evaluate(module, context, nextEvaluate)
wherecontext
is just{ format }
.Besides consistency, if you made this change perhaps you wouldn't need the special
buildEvaluateHooks
that this PR adds, andevaluate
could use the same chaining helpers as the other hooks?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.
My hesitance about it is primarily that
module
should not be changed whennextEvaluate
is invoked in an evaluate hook invoked for a specificmodule
(it is already a bit problematic for resolve or load hooks to switch to a different argument in the middle of the chain, but that's usually more okay because resolution and loading tend to be side-effect-free. Evaluation, however, is not). But I guess with a module first argument it's still possible to check this.I don't think
buildEvaluateHooks
can reuse the previous chaining helpers though, becausenextEvaluate
should not accept change of arguments like the others, for the reason mentioned above. It doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt evaluating a source text module as addon, for example (what does that even mean?), so a check on the arguments will need to be specific to the evaluate hook.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.
I would think that whatever check you do that
context.module
isn't changed could just as easily be done againstmodule
as the first argument. It hadn't occurred to me that users might change theresolve
specifier
or theload
url
values when callingnext
, so maybe it makes sense to add a similar check for those too.The
buildEvaluateHooks
comment was just an idea for an optimization, if it were possible. If not, so it is.