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

misc: drop support for Node before 10.13 (LTS) #8117

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 10, 2019
Merged

misc: drop support for Node before 10.13 (LTS) #8117

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 10, 2019

Conversation

brendankenny
Copy link
Member

@brendankenny brendankenny commented Apr 9, 2019

fixes #7215 and part of #7752

@@ -139,9 +139,8 @@ async function prepareAssets(artifacts, audits) {
}

/**
* Generates a JSON representation of traceData line-by-line to avoid OOM due to very large traces.
* COMPAT: As of Node 9, JSON.parse/stringify can handle 256MB+ strings. Once we drop support for
* Node 8, we can 'revert' PR #2593. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/47781288/89484
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

even though we can do this now, I think we like the one trace event per line format, so it made sense to drop the old comment.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, we love it

Copy link
Collaborator

@patrickhulce patrickhulce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

.appveyor.yml Outdated
platform: x86
# other Node versions are skipped, as appveyor only allows 1 concurrent job
# and we want appveyor finishing ASAP. see #2382
# - nodejs_version: "9"
# - nodejs_version: "11"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we even bother to keep this in here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we even bother to keep this in here?

lol, no :)

@patrickhulce
Copy link
Collaborator

Hang on though, tsc isn't happy with new node types

@brendankenny
Copy link
Member Author

there was a conflict with the new node types assuming that there would always be a Error.code (as there usually is in node). Fortunately it's easy to drop our Error augmentation since we've mostly switched over to LHError.

The last holdout fortunately fixes a long-time TODO (that we probably would have missed again for the major version change :), but on the downside is more annoying to review :)

@brendankenny brendankenny requested review from exterkamp and removed request for exterkamp April 9, 2019 22:39
Copy link
Collaborator

@patrickhulce patrickhulce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

still LGTM!

@@ -202,10 +196,6 @@ declare global {
group: string;
}

export interface LighthouseError extends Error {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

might have been nice to just export our class as this type so we could easily reference it as LH.LighthouseError still but I don't feel strongly

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah, I'd like to add this to our public types (when those actually exist :)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Move to Node 10
3 participants