Skip to content
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

[pull] master from nodejs:master #973

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 9, 2020
Merged

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Nov 9, 2020

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot]

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

The function was not checking if the parameter was actually a Promise
instance, but if it has a `then` method. Removing the utility function
in favor of a clearer `typeof` check, handling the case when the
thenable throws if then method is accessed more than once.

PR-URL: #35925
Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Nov 9, 2020
benjamingr and others added 2 commits November 9, 2020 07:39
PR-URL: #35991
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

PR-URL: #36006
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
@todo
Copy link

todo bot commented Nov 9, 2020

(benjamingr) - refactor to use getEventListeners when nodejs#35991 lands

// TODO(benjamingr) - refactor to use getEventListeners when #35991 lands
const { NodeEventTarget } = require('internal/event_target');
const timerPromises = require('timers/promises');
/* eslint-disable no-restricted-syntax */


This comment was generated by todo based on a TODO comment in aa1eb1f in #973. cc @nodejs.

ExE-Boss and others added 4 commits November 9, 2020 09:41
Refs: #35448
Refs: #36003
Refs: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-%typedarray%-intrinsic-object

Co-authored-by: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>

PR-URL: #36016
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Original commit message:
  Fix alloc/dealloc size mismatch for v8::BackingStore

  On newer compilers the {operator delete} with explicit {size_t}
  argument would be instantiated for {v8::BackingStore} and used
  in the destructor of {std::unique_ptr<v8::BackingStore>}. The {size_t}
  argument is wrong though, since the pointer actually points
  to a {v8::internal::BackingStore} object.
  The solution is to explicitly provide a {operator delete}, preventing
  an implicitly generated {size_t} operator.

  Bug:v8:11081

  Change-Id: Iee0aa47a67f0e41000bea628942f7e3d70198b83
  Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/2506712
  Commit-Queue: Ulan Degenbaev <ulan@chromium.org>
  Reviewed-by: Camillo Bruni <cbruni@chromium.org>
  Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#70916}

PR-URL: #35939
Fixes: #35669
Refs: v8/v8@9a49b22
Reviewed-By: Jiawen Geng <technicalcute@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
A test was added for this in 6f34498 but because it was a test in the
`internet` directory, it was not run on CI and it was not noticed that
the test was failing. This fixes the error that was causing the test to
fail.

PR-URL: #35979
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #36017
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
@pull pull bot merged commit 8f95438 into daddyfatstacksBIG:master Nov 9, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants