Increment inspector port for spawned subcommands #991
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I have added tests, and check for (I will update README after decide #990 as I moved |
|
Added section to README. All done. Ready for review. |
shadowspawn
added
the
pending release
|
Available now as a prerelease. See #1001 |
|
Shipped in v3: https://github.com/tj/commander.js/releases/tag/v3.0.0 |
shadowspawn
removed
the
pending release
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Look for node inspector arguments used for configuring debugging and increment the port number. This avoids launch errors when debugging git-style subcommands from top-level command.
A call like this which implicitly uses default port of 9229
will spawn a sub-command with port number incremented:
See earlier pull request with research and comments about approach of incrementing ports: #874
Related issues: #533 #838
Code can be reviewed by interested readers.
I have not minimised number of regex calls, could preflight with a simple search?
Opening as draft pull request because no changes yet to README or tests.