Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 19, 2019. It is now read-only.

Consider graceful-fs #68

Open
silverwind opened this issue Nov 25, 2013 · 6 comments
Open

Consider graceful-fs #68

silverwind opened this issue Nov 25, 2013 · 6 comments

Comments

@silverwind
Copy link

Hey, I'm regulary running into issues with EACCES / ENOENT when recursively removing directories containing thousands of files with wrench.rmdirSyncRecursive on a Windows server.

Now I'm wondering if you would consider using graceful-fs, which is a drop-in replacement for node's fs module and seems to solve a lot of issues I had with locked files on Windows.

I can send a PR if you like.

@ryanmcgrath
Copy link
Owner

Interesting, this seems like it would be useful - would be open to a pull request, but at the moment I'm unable to attend to this.

(I'm aware this is 2 months old; lot of things taking up my time at the moment, sadly. Sorry!)

@silverwind
Copy link
Author

Alright, will send a PR shortly.

@silverwind
Copy link
Author

Actually, I'll try the new release first as #73 looks promising to fix the Windows issues I'm having.

@ryanmcgrath
Copy link
Owner

Cool! Definitely let me know if it works for you.

@silverwind
Copy link
Author

Nope, I was still hitting an ENOTEMPTY pretty fast when running rmdirSyncRecursive on a mozilla-central source tree (250k files), while graceful-fs deleted it without a hitch.

I'll test some more before submitting the PR, just out of curiosity which part of graceful-fs is actually solving these errors.

Also to note, this module would bump your min version of node to 0.4.0.

@silverwind
Copy link
Author

I haven't found time to dissect graceful-fs yet, but I think the issue is corrected somewhere in polyfills.js.

I've submitted the PR now as-is. I don't think the switch would cause any issues, but just to be save, I'd suggest bumping the minor version.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants