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

src: simplify uptime and ppid return values #24562

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig commented Nov 22, 2018

This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

EDIT: Yellow CI - https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18912/

This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. label Nov 22, 2018
Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, so that's where the other PR got it from. :-)

@danbev
Copy link
Contributor

danbev commented Nov 27, 2018

Landed in 11c17e4.

@danbev danbev closed this Nov 27, 2018
danbev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2018
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: #24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
@cjihrig cjihrig deleted the return-values branch November 27, 2018 15:01
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2018
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: #24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2018
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: #24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
@BridgeAR BridgeAR mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2018
4 tasks
refack pushed a commit to refack/node that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: nodejs#24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2019
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: #24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
@BethGriggs BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2019
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2019
This commit removes extraneous wrapping of return values
in Uptime() and GetParentProcessId().

PR-URL: #24562
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
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++.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants