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

[BUGFIX] Prevent leaked runners/sub processes. #1205

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 24, 2018

Conversation

stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor

It is not uncommon during developer to end the process unexpectedly. Examples are , crash, etc.

Switching to execa gives us

@stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor Author

stefanpenner commented Jan 22, 2018

@johanneswuerbach / @rwjblue / @krisselden r?

@johanneswuerbach
Copy link
Member

johanneswuerbach commented Jan 22, 2018

Looks good to me, could you remove the yarn.lock? Otherwise 👍

@stefanpenner stefanpenner force-pushed the fix-leaky-runners branch 2 times, most recently from 977112b to 79ea457 Compare January 23, 2018 23:26
It is not uncommon during developer to end the process unexpectedly. Examples are <ctr-c>, crash, etc.

Switching to `execa` gives us

* automatic cleanup of child_processes in the above scenarios
* Promise API
* other nice things: https://github.com/sindresorhus/execa#why
@stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor Author

The remaining Travis Task was OSX, which is having some trouble. Prior to dropping the lock file it was green, and I have now been waiting 1+ day for the job to be executed.

Local test suggest all is well, as was the last CI run... So I am making the judgement call to skip it.

@stefanpenner stefanpenner deleted the fix-leaky-runners branch January 24, 2018 19:25
@stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor Author

stefanpenner commented Jan 24, 2018

@johanneswuerbach I believe we must release 2.x correct (as i see a previous commit changed the support matrix) ? Should I just do that now?

@johanneswuerbach
Copy link
Member

@stefanpenner done, support about the delay.

@stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor Author

@johanneswuerbach nice thanks!

@stefanpenner
Copy link
Contributor Author

@johanneswuerbach now that we support only newer node, any opposition to me modernizing the codebase?

@johanneswuerbach
Copy link
Member

johanneswuerbach commented Jan 24, 2018

Definitely not! Happy to review any upcoming PRs.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants