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

Editorial: Don't read the [[Status]] of non-cyclic modules #1486

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 10, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@littledan
Copy link
Member

littledan commented Mar 19, 2019

[[Status]] is a field of Cyclic Module Records; Abstract Module Records
don't keep track of it.

This patch avoids checking the [[Status]] of modules that don't have one,
instead first checking whether the module is cyclic. All of the use
cases seemed to be when modules were in dependency chains and not leaves.

Given the proposed Synthetic Module Records
tc39/proposal-javascript-standard-library#44
and their possible usage in JSON modules, CSS modules, and WebIDL
modules, it makes sense to avoid these code paths for those cases.

Fixes #1455

@ljharb ljharb added the spec bug label Mar 20, 2019

@ljharb ljharb requested review from zenparsing, ljharb, caridy, linclark and tc39/ecma262-editors Mar 20, 2019

@zenparsing zenparsing referenced this pull request Mar 20, 2019

Merged

Misc Editorial #1456

@ljharb ljharb self-assigned this Mar 20, 2019

@GeorgNeis
Copy link
Contributor

GeorgNeis left a comment

Thanks for taking care of this!

I think a similar change to GetModuleNamespace is still missing.

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

littledan commented Apr 6, 2019

@GeorgNeis Thanks for the review; fixed.

@littledan

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

littledan commented Apr 9, 2019

@ljharb @zenparsing Were you interested in landing this kind of bug fix as part of ES2019?

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Apr 9, 2019

No, this is not going to make it into 2019.

@littledan

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Copy link
Member Author

littledan commented Apr 9, 2019

I'm curious, what kind of fixes would make sense to backport to ES2019? My understanding was that landing most patches was on hold to focus on making it easy to land bug fixes.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Apr 9, 2019

To be clear; this is the kind of bug fix that would typically be backported to the outgoing year; in this year in particular, that list of possibilities is small and already closed.

@littledan

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Copy link
Member Author

littledan commented Apr 9, 2019

I see. If you're no longer backporting fixes, does that mean that master is open again for landing fixes?

@ljharb

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Apr 9, 2019

No, not yet. Please ping me on IRC tho to discuss further, this stuff is all off topic to the specific PR.

@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the littledan:fix-module-status-check branch from 557966e to ae81555 Apr 10, 2019

ljharb added a commit to littledan/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2019

littledan added some commits Mar 19, 2019

Editorial: Don't read the [[Status]] of non-cyclic modules (#1486)
[[Status]] is a field of Cyclic Module Records; Abstract Module Records
don't keep track of it.

This patch avoids checking the [[Status]] of modules that don't have one,
instead first checking whether the module is cyclic. All of the use
cases seemed to be when modules were in dependency chains and not leaves.

Given the proposed Synthetic Module Records
tc39/proposal-javascript-standard-library#44
and their possible usage in JSON modules, CSS modules, and WebIDL
modules, it makes sense to avoid these code paths for those cases.

@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the littledan:fix-module-status-check branch from ae81555 to 6b9c201 Apr 10, 2019

@ljharb

ljharb approved these changes Apr 10, 2019

@ljharb ljharb merged commit 6b9c201 into tc39:master Apr 10, 2019

1 check was pending

continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.