-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
[v11.x-backport] Backport 24861 to v11.x #25258
[v11.x-backport] Backport 24861 to v11.x #25258
Conversation
Originally from portions of nodejs#23319. PR-URL: nodejs#24861 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
This is an alternative to nodejs#23319 which attaches the loaded addons to the environment and closes them when the environment is destroyed. PR-URL: nodejs#24861 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
What was the conflict? |
@targos I didn't run into a conflict. I made this PR because there was a backport-requested tag. I was surprised to find no conflict. I figured although there might not be a source code conflict the tests might fail or something, but they didn't fail locally. |
This needed to be tested with CITGM before it was landed. The original commits were breaking |
@MylesBorins I’m not sure, but maybe adding a backport request to a change that broke something in CITGM is a bit confusing? We still want a clean CITGM on master, so dont-land + a request to investigate could be a better approach for the future? |
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesRe: #24861 (comment)