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

[v18.x backport] src: add detailed embedder process initialization API #44358

Closed

Conversation

addaleax
Copy link
Member

Backport of #44121, only conflict was a minor conflict in node.h with #43629


So far, process initialization has been a bit all over the place
in Node.js. InitializeNodeWithArgs() is our main public API
for this, but inclusion of items in it vs. InitializeOncePerProcess()
and PlatformInit() has been random at best. Likewise,
some pieces of initialization have been guarded by
NODE_SHARED_MODE, but also fairly randomly and without
any meaningful connection to shared library usage.

This leaves embedders in a position to cherry-pick some of
the initialization code into their own code to make their
application behave like typical Node.js applications to the
degree to which they desire it.

Electron takes an alternative route and makes direct use of
InitializeOncePerProcess() already while it is a private
API, with a TODO to add it to the public API in Node.js.

This commit addresses that TODO, and TODOs around the
NODE_SHARED_MODE usage. Specifically:

  • InitializeOncePerProcess() and TearDownOncePerProcess()
    are added to the public API.
  • The flags option of these functions are merged with the
    flags option for InitializeNodeWithArgs(), since they
    essentially share the same semantics.
  • The return value of the function is made an abstract class,
    rather than a struct, for easier API/ABI stability.
  • Initialization code from main() is brought into these
    functions (since that makes sense in general).
  • Add a TODO for turning InitializeNodeWithArgs() into
    a small wrapper around InitializeOncePerProcess() and
    eventually removing it (at least one major release cycle
    each, presumably).
  • Remove NODE_SHARED_MODE guards and replace them with
    runtime options.

PR-URL: #44121
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung joyeec9h3@gmail.com
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson midawson@redhat.com

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/startup

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. v18.x Issues that can be reproduced on v18.x or PRs targeting the v18.x-staging branch. labels Aug 23, 2022
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@addaleax addaleax added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Aug 25, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Aug 25, 2022
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

Looks like the recent flakes are also present in v18.x staging now, we should probably backport those test fixes there too..

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

Opened #44473

@addaleax
Copy link
Member Author

addaleax commented Sep 6, 2022

@RafaelGSS Are the failures here expected? #44473 was closed but this still doesn't seem like it's related to the backport in any way.

@RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member

@RafaelGSS Are the failures here expected? #44473 was closed but this still doesn't seem like it's related to the backport in any way.

I'm not sure. The #44473 didn't land. @joyeecheung are you sure all the patches are in v18.x-staging? Basically, the proposal contains everything from this list:

branch-diff upstream/v18.x-staging upstream/main --exclude-label=semver-major,dont-land-on-v18.x,backport-requested-v18.x,backport-blocked-v18.x,backport-open-v18.x,backported-to-v18.x --filter-release --format=simple --reverse

@RafaelGSS RafaelGSS force-pushed the v18.x-staging branch 2 times, most recently from c0cfb14 to 8ef5c40 Compare September 7, 2022 16:28
@addaleax addaleax added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 8, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 8, 2022
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

@RafaelGSS Yes, I think the tests fixes have been landed. The new test failures were caused by #44402 and #44366, those probably need some proper fix (maybe #44571 does it for the watch mode failure)

@addaleax
Copy link
Member Author

@nodejs/backporters Can this be merged? As in #44571 this is something I’d leave to y’all unless you’d prefer for me to land this.

@RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member

I think so. I'll do the next regular release, in case it conflicts somehow I'll let you know.

Copy link
Member

@RafaelGSS RafaelGSS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member

RafaelGSS commented Sep 23, 2022

@addaleax I'm preparing the next v18 release. Could you please rebase to solve the conflicts?

So far, process initialization has been a bit all over the place
in Node.js. `InitializeNodeWithArgs()` is our main public API
for this, but inclusion of items in it vs. `InitializeOncePerProcess()`
and `PlatformInit()` has been random at best. Likewise,
some pieces of initialization have been guarded by
`NODE_SHARED_MODE`, but also fairly randomly and without
any meaningful connection to shared library usage.

This leaves embedders in a position to cherry-pick some of
the initialization code into their own code to make their
application behave like typical Node.js applications to the
degree to which they desire it.

Electron takes an alternative route and makes direct use of
`InitializeOncePerProcess()` already while it is a private
API, with a `TODO` to add it to the public API in Node.js.

This commit addresses that `TODO`, and `TODO`s around the
`NODE_SHARED_MODE` usage. Specifically:

- `InitializeOncePerProcess()` and `TearDownOncePerProcess()`
  are added to the public API.
- The `flags` option of these functions are merged with the
  `flags` option for `InitializeNodeWithArgs()`, since they
  essentially share the same semantics.
- The return value of the function is made an abstract class,
  rather than a struct, for easier API/ABI stability.
- Initialization code from `main()` is brought into these
  functions (since that makes sense in general).
- Add a `TODO` for turning `InitializeNodeWithArgs()` into
  a small wrapper around `InitializeOncePerProcess()` and
  eventually removing it (at least one major release cycle
  each, presumably).
- Remove `NODE_SHARED_MODE` guards and replace them with
  runtime options.

PR-URL: nodejs#44121
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
@addaleax
Copy link
Member Author

addaleax commented Oct 1, 2022

@RafaelGSS Yes, done.

It’s highly frustrating that backport PRs just lay around as open PRs with no conflicts and green CI for weeks, and then miss a release because they’ve started having a conflict with a later backport and I happened to have been unavailable for a work week. This sucks.

@addaleax addaleax added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Oct 1, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Oct 1, 2022
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2022
So far, process initialization has been a bit all over the place
in Node.js. `InitializeNodeWithArgs()` is our main public API
for this, but inclusion of items in it vs. `InitializeOncePerProcess()`
and `PlatformInit()` has been random at best. Likewise,
some pieces of initialization have been guarded by
`NODE_SHARED_MODE`, but also fairly randomly and without
any meaningful connection to shared library usage.

This leaves embedders in a position to cherry-pick some of
the initialization code into their own code to make their
application behave like typical Node.js applications to the
degree to which they desire it.

Electron takes an alternative route and makes direct use of
`InitializeOncePerProcess()` already while it is a private
API, with a `TODO` to add it to the public API in Node.js.

This commit addresses that `TODO`, and `TODO`s around the
`NODE_SHARED_MODE` usage. Specifically:

- `InitializeOncePerProcess()` and `TearDownOncePerProcess()`
  are added to the public API.
- The `flags` option of these functions are merged with the
  `flags` option for `InitializeNodeWithArgs()`, since they
  essentially share the same semantics.
- The return value of the function is made an abstract class,
  rather than a struct, for easier API/ABI stability.
- Initialization code from `main()` is brought into these
  functions (since that makes sense in general).
- Add a `TODO` for turning `InitializeNodeWithArgs()` into
  a small wrapper around `InitializeOncePerProcess()` and
  eventually removing it (at least one major release cycle
  each, presumably).
- Remove `NODE_SHARED_MODE` guards and replace them with
  runtime options.

PR-URL: #44121
Backport-PR-URL: #44358
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
@danielleadams
Copy link
Member

Landed in f99f5d3

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. v18.x Issues that can be reproduced on v18.x or PRs targeting the v18.x-staging branch.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants