This adds the constructor name of the event target to the emitted
warning. Right now it's difficult to identify where the leak is
actually coming from and having some further information about the
source will likely help to identify the source.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/27694
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Yongsheng Zhang <zyszys98@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <chalkerx@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing
common module.
Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop`
abstraction.
First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it
results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases
the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be
aware of to be effective on the project.
Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which
should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To
my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a
matter of time.)
Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really
get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all.
Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using
the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`.
So, I propose removing it.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12822
Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
When a possible listener leak is detected, a warning is
emitted. This commit updates an existing test to verify that the
warning is only emitted once.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12502
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Export a new common.noop no-operation function for general use.
Allow using common.mustCall() without a fn argument to simplify
test cases.
Replace various non-op functions throughout tests with common.noop
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/12027
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
Allows Symbol to be converted to String so it can be included in the
error.
Fixes: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9003
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/9021
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
This makes the famous `EventEmitter memory leak` warnings occurring
when the listener count for a given event exceeds a specified number
more programatically accessible, by giving them properties referring
to the event emitter instance and the event itself.
This can be useful for debugging the origins of such a warning when
the stack itself doesn’t reveal enough information about the event
emitter instance itself, e.g. when manual inspection of the
already-registered listeners is expected to be useful.
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/8298
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <Fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
