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

Use fs.promises where possible #64

Open
benjamingr opened this issue May 16, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

Use fs.promises where possible #64

benjamingr opened this issue May 16, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@benjamingr
Copy link

Node now ships with an fs promise API, it would be cool if mz would detect if that API is available (optionally?) and use it if it's there.

@RyanZim
Copy link
Contributor

RyanZim commented May 16, 2018

As of Node v10.1, usage of fs.promises raises an ExperementalWarning in the console, I don't think we should use that until it's stable.

@benjamingr
Copy link
Author

Fair enough - feel free to close or keep open as a tracking issue - we intend to make it non-experimental as soon as we've gathered enough user feedback about it :)

Thanks for the quick response.

@RyanZim
Copy link
Contributor

RyanZim commented May 16, 2018

Not on the team, just commenting here.

@LinusU
Copy link
Contributor

LinusU commented May 16, 2018

What @RyanZim said 😄

Yeah, we really don't want to trigger ExperementalWarning for our users, so let's wait until it's stable ☺️

@RyanZim
Copy link
Contributor

RyanZim commented May 16, 2018

@LinusU Speaking of which, #63 should be fixed 😉

@ExE-Boss
Copy link

Usage of fs.promises would be a breaking change, since fs.promises returns an object for callbacks returning more than one item, whereas mz returns an array in those cases.

Compare the return type of fs.promises.write(…) to that of mz/fs.write(…).

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