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

Electron start with an error alert relate this package. #87

Closed
elantion opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Electron start with an error alert relate this package. #87

elantion opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@elantion
Copy link

elantion commented Apr 2, 2019

I am using electron with ipfs. When start running ipfs, after 20 seconds, it pop up an error alert.

Uncaught Exception:
Error: Unable to update lock within the stale threshold
    at options.fs.stat (/Users/yinjames/Projects/lc-ipfs/node_modules/proper-lockfile/lib/lockfile.js:121:25)
    at /Users/yinjames/Projects/lc-ipfs/node_modules/graceful-fs/polyfills.js:285:20
    at FSReqWrap.oncomplete (fs.js:155:5)

It seems like an error with node-proper-lockfile. So I post an issue here. You can reproduce this error by using ipfs electron example.
Relate post here: ipfs/js-ipfs#1962

@satazor
Copy link
Contributor

satazor commented Apr 2, 2019

This is probably a duplicate of #82

@elantion
Copy link
Author

elantion commented Apr 3, 2019

I am not sure it is duplicate or not. I am using a different OS, Mac Mojave with APFS. I will test it after pull request merge. Thanks mate.

@elantion
Copy link
Author

elantion commented Apr 3, 2019

Tested OK with me. And do you forget to remove the log?

precision s 1554254656460 1554254656000
precision s 1554254666000 1554254666000
precision s 1554254676000 1554254676000
precision s 1554254686000 1554254686000
precision s 1554254696000 1554254696000
precision s 1554254706000 1554254706000
precision s 1554254716000 1554254716000
precision s 1554254726000 1554254726000
precision s 1554254736000 1554254736000
precision s 1554254746000 1554254746000
precision s 1554254756000 1554254756000
precision s 1554254766000 1554254766000
precision s 1554254776000 1554254776000
precision s 1554254786000 1554254786000
precision s 1554254796000 1554254796000
precision s 1554254806000 1554254806000
precision s 1554254816000 1554254816000
precision s 1554254826000 1554254826000
precision s 1554254836000 1554254836000
precision s 1554254846000 1554254846000
precision s 1554254856000 1554254856000
precision s 1554254866000 1554254866000

@satazor
Copy link
Contributor

satazor commented Apr 3, 2019

I left it there so that @pimlie could debug too.

I will remove it afterwards.

satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
satazor added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2019
@satazor
Copy link
Contributor

satazor commented Apr 3, 2019

This should have been fixed in #88

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

2 participants