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

doc: update the notable changes in 10.x #20316

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

A couple entries were missing and one entry was not really relevant.

The assert.throws change is actually semver-minor but it did not land on 9.x yet, so 10.0.0 is the first release for it. So I guess it is also the place to note that change?

I am not sure if it makes a lot of sense to change these entries now but I thought I can just open the PR and see what others think.

If it should be updated: I guess the wording for these could be further improved.

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

A couple entries were missing and one entry was not really relevant.
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Apr 26, 2018
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actualy changes LGTM. No opinion on whether it's a good idea to modify the notable changes list after-the-fact like this.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 26, 2018

No opinion on whether it's a good idea to modify the notable changes list after-the-fact like this.

I guess @nodejs/release might have opinions?

Copy link
Contributor

@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With some possible nits)

* Calling `assert.ifError()` will now throw with any argument other than `undefined` or `null`. Previously the method would throw with any truthy value. [[`e65a6e81ef`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/e65a6e81ef)]
* The `assert.rejects()` and `assert.doesNotReject()` methods have been added for working with async functions. [[`599337f43e`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/599337f43e)]
* Assertion errors will show a diff in case objects are used. [[`2d9e87695e`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/2d9e87695e)]
* `assert.throws` accepts an object for comparison to the error. [[`2d374916eb`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/2d374916eb)]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

`assert.throws` -> `assert.throws()`?

* Async_hooks
* Older experimental async_hooks APIs have been removed. [[`1cc6b993b9`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/1cc6b993b9)]
* Buffer
* Uses of `new Buffer()` and `Buffer()` outside of the `node_modules` directory will now emit a runtime deprecation warning. [[`9d4ab90117`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/9d4ab90117)]
* `Buffer.isEncoding()` now returns `undefined` for falsy values, including an empty string. [[`452eed956e`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/452eed956e)]
* `Buffer.fill()` will throw if an attempt is made to fill with an empty `Buffer`. [[`1e802539b2`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/1e802539b2)]
* Removed the `noAssert` argument from all `Buffer` read and write functions. [[`e8bb1f35df`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/e8bb1f35df)]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

`noAssert` argument was removed...?

* Calling `assert.ifError()` will now throw with any argument other than `undefined` or `null`. Previously the method would throw with any truthy value. [[`e65a6e81ef`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/e65a6e81ef)]
* The `assert.rejects()` and `assert.doesNotReject()` methods have been added for working with async functions. [[`599337f43e`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/599337f43e)]
* Assertion errors will show a diff in case objects are used. [[`2d9e87695e`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/2d9e87695e)]
* `assert.throws` accepts an object for comparison to the error. [[`2d374916eb`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/2d374916eb)]
* The error message from `assert.ok(expression)` now also contains the expression itself [[`f76ef50432`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/f76ef50432)]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

itself -> itself.?

@@ -98,6 +102,7 @@
* Util
* `util.types.is[…]` type checks have been added. [[`b20af8088a`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/b20af8088a)]
* Support for bigint formatting has been added to `util.inspect()`. [[`39dc947409`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/39dc947409)]
* Runtime deprecate using a property named `inspect` on an object to specify a custom inspection with `util.inspect()`. [[`617e3e96e6`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/617e3e96e6)]

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, I tried to reword it as suggested but it still sounds a bit off to me.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

util.inspect() custom inspection with inspect property has been deprecated at runtime.

?

@@ -33,15 +33,18 @@

* Assert
* Calling `assert.fail()` with more than one argument is deprecated. [[`70dcacd710`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/70dcacd710)]
* Calling `assert.ok()` with no arguments will now throw. [[`3cd7977a42`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/3cd7977a42)]

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this deletion be explained?

@vsemozhetbyt It's incorrect. assert.ok() always threw if there was no argument (probalby because undefined is false-y.) What's changed is that there is a better message in that situation. While a nice change, I suspect it does not warrant calling out in the Notable Changes section.

@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Apr 26, 2018
@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Apr 26, 2018

No opinion on whether it's a good idea to modify the notable changes list after-the-fact like this.
I guess @nodejs/release might have opinions?

I think it should be fine, we've tweaked things like this in the past, it's better to have it accurate and informative after the fact than leave it in a worse state.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Apr 26, 2018

I'm generally -1 on it. There's were around 300 major commits and 30 odd minors. It's impractical to list every possible notable change and adding them after the fact doesn't make sense. This is why it's helpful to have more eyes on before the release. The draft notable changes were up for at least a week before.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 26, 2018

adding them after the fact doesn't make sense.

Why not? As @rvagg points out, "It's better to have it accurate and informative after the fact than leave it in a worse state."

@AyushG3112
Copy link
Contributor

AyushG3112 commented Apr 26, 2018

Pardon my ignorance, but everything that landed with the v10.0.0 release should have been part of the 10.0.0 milestone right? Or am I wrong?

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

@AyushG3112 the milestone was added at PRs in the end to distinguish them from other PRs that should land in 11.x. A lot landed in 10.x without that milestone.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

I addressed the comments.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Apr 26, 2018

Why not? As @rvagg points out, "It's better to have it accurate and informative after the fact than leave it in a worse state."

I'm fine with removing an inaccurate item, I'm not fine with adding items. Any and all of the semver-major and semver-minor commits could have made the list and care was taken to break those out into distinct sections in the changelog so that they would be more visible.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

@jasnell I thought the notable-change label would be enough and the source for these things.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Apr 26, 2018

There are 95 issues marked with notable-change at the moment, many from old releases. Going through those manually to reconcile the 750+ commits that landed in this major when there are also CI, CITGM, and other items to go through, is not super practical. What would be good is some improved automation tooling that would find those tags and make them visible. For instance, an update to branch-diff or changelog-maker that included a [NOTABLE CHANGE] marker in the list, similar to how it marks [SEMVER-MAJOR] and [SEMVER-MINOR] commits would make that label significantly more useful.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Apr 26, 2018

Also keep in mind that there are many notable changes that are not marked using the notable-change label. As I said, any and all of several hundred semver-major and semver-minor commits could have been considered notable.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

@rvagg

[...] we've tweaked things like this in the past, it's better to have it accurate and informative after the fact than leave it in a worse state.

I agree, since people will also look at the changelog later on. Especially, when it becomes an LTS release.

@jasnell

It's impractical to list every possible notable change and adding them after the fact doesn't make sense.

I agree that is it difficult to note every possible notable change but I personally think it is actually useful to have this discussion right now to find a way to

There are 95 issues marked with notable-change at the moment, many from old releases.

Yes, but most of them can easily be distinguished because they are often onboarding of a new collaborator and we know that we only have to check the ones that landed since 9.0.0 was released. Older ones can be ignored. That is how I went through the list. I was confused when looking at the notable changes because I expected other entries to be in there. So I decided to go through the ones with that label and that is how I opened the PR.

What would be good is some improved automation tooling that would find those tags and make them visible.

I thought that was already the case. Good to know that it is not.

Also keep in mind that there are many notable changes that are not marked using the notable-change label.

I think we should enforce that. I am going to open a PR to change our guidelines for it.


I think it would still be best to update the list, especially, since I do not see any downside in it. The PR is here and I already did the necessary work.

@BridgeAR BridgeAR requested a review from a team April 30, 2018 14:45
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

Most people will now have read the changelog even though we will have more people reading the changelog when 10.x becomes the LTS release. I wonder why it is bad to fix these entries since I already did the work @jasnell.

I personally do not see this as something important but I also see no point in not landing this. @nodejs/tsc PTAL and decide what to do here.

@BridgeAR BridgeAR added the tsc-agenda Issues and PRs to discuss during the meetings of the TSC. label May 14, 2018
Copy link
Member

@TimothyGu TimothyGu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm +1 for landing this even after the release of v10.0.0.

@@ -52,6 +55,7 @@
* The `crypto.DEFAULT_ENCODING` property has been deprecated. [[`6035beea93`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/6035beea93)]
* The `ECDH.convertKey()` method has been added. [[`f2e02883e7`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/f2e02883e7)]
* The `crypto.fips` property has been deprecated. [[`6e7992e8b8`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/6e7992e8b8)]
* The AES-CCM algorithm got implemented. [[`1e07acd476`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/1e07acd476)]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/got/has been/ to be consistent.

@@ -98,6 +102,7 @@
* Util
* `util.types.is[…]` type checks have been added. [[`b20af8088a`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/b20af8088a)]
* Support for bigint formatting has been added to `util.inspect()`. [[`39dc947409`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/39dc947409)]
* Runtime deprecate using a property named `inspect` on an object to specify a custom inspection with `util.inspect()`. [[`617e3e96e6`](https://github.com/nodejs/node/commit/617e3e96e6)]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

util.inspect() custom inspection with inspect property has been deprecated at runtime.

?

Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with @TimothyGu’s suggestions

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 21, 2018

Still not fond of this change but won't block it. Would ask that if this lands, a corresponding update is made to the blog post in the website to ensure that the notable changes shown there are consistent.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 21, 2018

In future semver-majors, I would ask that collaborators please give more attention to the proposed notable changes list and changelog before the release is made. It would be helpful.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

Comments addressed.

New CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/740/

I will open a PR for the website right after landing this.

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. As long as we agree that these would have been included if identified earlier so we are moving closer to the "right" list then its helpful.

Copy link
Member

@fhinkel fhinkel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@fhinkel
Copy link
Member

fhinkel commented May 23, 2018

As discussed in the TSC meeting today, consensus is that this can land. Thanks!

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks. Landed in cf989b6

@BridgeAR BridgeAR closed this May 25, 2018
BridgeAR added a commit to BridgeAR/node that referenced this pull request May 25, 2018
A couple entries were missing and one entry was not really relevant.

PR-URL: nodejs#20316
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2018
A couple entries were missing and one entry was not really relevant.

PR-URL: #20316
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request May 29, 2018
@BridgeAR BridgeAR deleted the fix-10.x-changelog branch January 20, 2020 11:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. tsc-agenda Issues and PRs to discuss during the meetings of the TSC.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet