src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic #34553

yashLadha · 2020-07-29T16:48:11Z

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
documentation is changed or added
commit message follows commit guidelines

mscdex · 2020-07-29T19:03:44Z

What do you mean by "library name" ?

yashLadha · 2020-07-30T03:45:13Z

@mscdex array is part of default library provided by C++ http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/array/array/. When I first read the lines I thought why are we saving it in the default library keyword. This is done on the lines we won't name a variablevector.

addaleax · 2020-07-30T15:09:25Z

I don’t see any particular reason to avoid the names of standard library classes. We’re never importing items from the std namespace with using, so there’s no chance for conflicts, either.

yashLadha · 2020-07-30T15:29:55Z

@addaleax Agree with you but as a convention should we be using keyword names as an identifier? I wrote the patch because if someone reads it they might think why we are using this variable name when it is a keyword defined in one the libraries provided. As we avoid using list as an identifier and give it a meaningful name this is done on the same lines. I don't see any issues with that but open to thoughts around this 😄

joyeecheung · 2020-08-04T14:12:02Z

I'd prefer readability over potential keyword conflicts as well - especially considering the std namespace can be extended as C++ grows and keywords like list queue map set are already there. If anything, renaming array to something even more descriptive would be nice, like fields_array or typed_array here (I don't know how to name it in a way that's succinct enough while saying "this is a float64 array whose values will be read from the JS land later" to be honest so take my suggestion with a grain of salt)

yashLadha · 2020-08-04T14:22:53Z

@joyeecheung Agree with you but my intention behind the changes is similar to usage of ab for arrayBuffer however your suggestion seems valid and the naming should be much more verbose in its meaning. Any suggestion or best practice for native code which we follow in the nodejs community?

joyeecheung · 2020-08-05T19:04:36Z

@yashLadha I don't think there's any particular convention in native code variable naming, it's just my personal opinion that verbose names are better than names like ab (as one would have to see them a few times in the code base before understanding what they stand for, which makes it more difficult for new-comers to get started with the code base)

yashLadha · 2020-08-06T08:39:38Z

@joyeecheung @addaleax when I looked in the complete file itself found that this logic is being duplicated at several places, so converted the logic to use a single inline function so that code doesn't get duplicated.

yashLadha · 2020-08-08T17:50:30Z

Also no performance degradation as well

                                 confidence improvement accuracy (*)   (**)  (***)
 process/memoryUsage.js n=100000        ***      4.51 %       ±0.90% ±1.19% ±1.52%

Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case there are 1 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
  0.05 false positives, when considering a   5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
  0.01 false positives, when considering a   1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
  0.00 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

addaleax

Are the unrelated formatting changes here done by clang-format?

yashLadha · 2020-08-09T04:41:55Z

Yes @addaleax linter did that.

joyeecheung · 2020-08-10T09:14:07Z

src/node_process_methods.cc

@@ -89,6 +89,14 @@ static void Chdir(const FunctionCallbackInfo<Value>& args) {
  }
 }

+inline Local<ArrayBuffer> get_fields_array_buffer(


It would be better to name it like get_fields_array_buffer_from_first_argument, or accept an argument specifying the index of the argument array, otherwise this new convention makes the code less easier to grok IMO.

tniessen

Lots of unrelated whitespace changes.

tniessen · 2020-09-05T10:15:41Z

src/node_process_methods.cc

  args.GetReturnValue().Set(cwd);
 }

 static void Kill(const FunctionCallbackInfo<Value>& args) {
  Environment* env = Environment::GetCurrent(args);
  Local<Context> context = env->context();

-  if (args.Length() != 2)
-    return env->ThrowError("Bad argument.");
+  if (args.Length() != 2) return env->ThrowError("Bad argument.");


Do we want these kind of changes?

This was done by the clang-formatter 😅 not intentional

Can you try reformatting the code and make sure you set CLANG_FORMAT_START to where this branch branches off from the master, so that it does not format irrelevant changes? For example since this PR only contains 3 commits you can also try CLANG_FORMAT_START=HEAD~3 make format-cpp

@joyeecheung Output from the command

❯ CLANG_FORMAT_START=HEAD~3 make format-cpp Formatting C++ diff from HEAD~3.. clang-format did not modify any files

I think what i can do is basically reset to master and do the changes only and do not format the code. In that way those unnecessary changes won't be there.

Removed the formatting changes.

We were fetching the buffer from the float array to send out the response in js land, however that logic is being duplicated in node_process.h. Now they will be using an inline to fetch the array buffers and making it more generic.

nodejs-github-bot · 2020-11-10T09:47:30Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/34277/

github-actions · 2020-11-13T21:50:53Z

Landed in 4b0308a...8656ab4

We were fetching the buffer from the float array to send out the response in js land, however that logic is being duplicated in node_process.h. Now they will be using an inline to fetch the array buffers and making it more generic. PR-URL: #34553 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added the c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. label Jul 29, 2020

yashLadha changed the title ~~src: rename variable to not use library name~~ src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic Aug 6, 2020

yashLadha force-pushed the fix/rename_variables branch from fd4ef08 to 468ef6c Compare August 6, 2020 08:38

yashLadha force-pushed the fix/rename_variables branch from bdaf4df to 6187fbe Compare August 8, 2020 15:26

addaleax approved these changes Aug 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

joyeecheung reviewed Aug 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

yashLadha force-pushed the fix/rename_variables branch from 6187fbe to a4fd1eb Compare August 12, 2020 09:59

tniessen reviewed Sep 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

yashLadha force-pushed the fix/rename_variables branch from a4fd1eb to 770d2bb Compare September 9, 2020 15:38

src: remove duplicate logic for getting buffer

18d5b99

We were fetching the buffer from the float array to send out the response in js land, however that logic is being duplicated in node_process.h. Now they will be using an inline to fetch the array buffers and making it more generic.

yashLadha force-pushed the fix/rename_variables branch from 770d2bb to 18d5b99 Compare September 10, 2020 06:42

aduh95 added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. review wanted PRs that need reviews. request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. labels Nov 8, 2020

github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Nov 10, 2020

joyeecheung approved these changes Nov 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

aduh95 added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Nov 13, 2020

github-actions bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label Nov 13, 2020

github-actions bot closed this Nov 13, 2020

codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2020

v15.3.0 proposal #36232

Merged

BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2020

v14.15.2 proposal #36476

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic #34553

src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic #34553

yashLadha commented Jul 29, 2020

mscdex commented Jul 29, 2020

yashLadha commented Jul 30, 2020

addaleax commented Jul 30, 2020

yashLadha commented Jul 30, 2020 •

edited

joyeecheung commented Aug 4, 2020

yashLadha commented Aug 4, 2020

joyeecheung commented Aug 5, 2020 •

edited

yashLadha commented Aug 6, 2020

yashLadha commented Aug 8, 2020

addaleax left a comment

yashLadha commented Aug 9, 2020

joyeecheung Aug 10, 2020

tniessen left a comment

tniessen Sep 5, 2020

yashLadha Sep 5, 2020 •

edited

joyeecheung Sep 7, 2020

yashLadha Sep 8, 2020

yashLadha Sep 9, 2020

nodejs-github-bot commented Nov 10, 2020

github-actions bot commented Nov 13, 2020

src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic #34553

src: refactor code to remove duplicate logic #34553

Conversation

yashLadha commented Jul 29, 2020

Checklist

mscdex commented Jul 29, 2020

yashLadha commented Jul 30, 2020

addaleax commented Jul 30, 2020

yashLadha commented Jul 30, 2020 • edited

joyeecheung commented Aug 4, 2020

yashLadha commented Aug 4, 2020

joyeecheung commented Aug 5, 2020 • edited

yashLadha commented Aug 6, 2020

yashLadha commented Aug 8, 2020

addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yashLadha commented Aug 9, 2020

joyeecheung Aug 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tniessen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tniessen Sep 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yashLadha Sep 5, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joyeecheung Sep 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yashLadha Sep 8, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yashLadha Sep 9, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nodejs-github-bot commented Nov 10, 2020

github-actions bot commented Nov 13, 2020

yashLadha commented Jul 30, 2020 •

edited

joyeecheung commented Aug 5, 2020 •

edited

yashLadha Sep 5, 2020 •

edited