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

Same issue with 0.2.12. Expected version ">=6.0.0" #17

Closed
jh2oman opened this issue Nov 21, 2016 · 14 comments
Closed

Same issue with 0.2.12. Expected version ">=6.0.0" #17

jh2oman opened this issue Nov 21, 2016 · 14 comments

Comments

@jh2oman
Copy link

jh2oman commented Nov 21, 2016

The engine "node" is incompatible with this module. Expected version ">=6.0.0".
node -v
v4.5.0

@CobaltDelta
Copy link

CobaltDelta commented Nov 22, 2016

Edit: Talking out of my ass, please disregard. :) I didn't read carefully enough and jumped to conclusions.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

brianloveswords commented Nov 22, 2016

@CobaltTiger for why something that wasn't "broken" got fixed, see https://medium.com/@jasnell/node-js-buffer-api-changes-3c21f1048f97#.wniv7cqhz and nodejs/node#4660. Because there are no external API changes which would warrent a minor release, and there are potential security concerns, which is what patch is made for, if at all possible I want to keep this a patch update since I can't go figure out all the dependents and make them update.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

@jh2oman 0.2.13 should fix your issue. @CobaltTiger, gotta dig into yours more.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

brianloveswords commented Nov 22, 2016

@CobaltTiger if you get a second can you give me a stack trace using 0.2.12 or 0.2.13 (the only difference is 0.2.13 removes the engine restriction from package.json)

@jh2oman
Copy link
Author

jh2oman commented Nov 22, 2016

@brianloveswords thank you very much. Unfortunately out until after Thanksgiving so I won't be able to verify till then.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

@jh2oman sorry I wasn't able to get to it until you were out, let me know if it fixes your issue once you get back and I'll close this. Thanks!

@CobaltDelta
Copy link

CobaltDelta commented Nov 22, 2016

@brianloveswords Aha, security issues I can completely understand. I had not seen these writeups -- and even at a glance I can see that being an issue that would indeed be best addressed through a patch.

As far as a stack trace goes, I'm unfortunately not able to easily produce one. In my case, the offending first-level dependent is a plugin called grunt-aws-lambda, which leverages archiver ~0.14.4. It proceeds to call npm.load and set its log level to silent. :) I do see that its only interaction with archiver (which, itself, seems to be the culprit as it is the only thing using buffer-crc32) is that it creates an archiver('zip');
We're using different node versions between our personal computers and our build servers (I know...) and the issue does not present itself on Node v4.4.5, but does break in 5.1.1. The error is "Buffer.alloc is not a function," as previously mentioned -- which is very strange because I see your code specifically checks for typeof Buffer.alloc === "function". Pretty sure there's no case where it would pass that check but throw that error afterwards. Maybe it's actually an issue with archiver and not buffer-crc32.

If you really need the stack trace, I can try tomorrow to make that child npm process more talkative.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

@CobaltTiger yeah, the stack trace would help – 0.2.12 tries to be smart and fall back to new Buffer if alloc and from are not available. I tried testing it locally using 5.1.1, it passes the test suite and I've confirmed it's falling back, so I'm not sure what's going on.

@fengmk2
Copy link

fengmk2 commented Nov 22, 2016

@brianloveswords I think recently publish versions broken a lot. And I think those verions should be 0.3.x not 0.2.x.

@CobaltDelta
Copy link

I feel like yeah, if it does have to go to a new minor version, 0.2.x
should immediately have a deprecation warning slapped on it. Won't do a
whole lot to force outdated plugins to update, but I'm pretty sure it'll
encourage active projects to get up to date.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:15 PM, fengmk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

@brianloveswords https://github.com/brianloveswords I think recently
publish versions broken a lot. And I think those verions should be 0.3.x
not 0.2.x.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#17 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMv4ADj2Fjm9m-zHw4XCpPHrUU7nYMj7ks5rAl5GgaJpZM4K41CN
.

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

brianloveswords commented Nov 22, 2016

@fengmk2 please file an issue with a stack trace if you're having one. There's definitely been some churn with this update to the new Buffer APIs while still trying to remain backwards compatible, which I take responsibility & apologize for, but I believe it's in the best interest of the community to provide this as a patch update.

@CobaltDelta
Copy link

CobaltDelta commented Nov 22, 2016

@brianloveswords I'm sorry, I'm unable to produce a stack trace on my end. I did notice that npm was pulling down only 0.2.8 in previous builds -- perhaps that's the crux of the issue.

-- Confirmed that the previously mentioned build problem is NOT present when using 0.2.13 -- my apologies for the confusion.

I failed to notice it at the time, but even as of 7pm EST, npm was still pulling down v0.2.8 for some reason. Which is equally weird, since the only dependencies we've got are requesting buffer-crc32@~0.2.1, which should have picked the latest version... Or it could've been an unfortunate caching/proxy incident, since we proxy the npm repo through Artifactory, and it's proven to not always be the smartest. :T

@jh2oman
Copy link
Author

jh2oman commented Nov 28, 2016

@brianloveswords 0.2.13 Fixes my issue. Thank you very much!

@brianloveswords
Copy link
Owner

@jh2oman great, thanks for following up and sorry again for breaking it!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants