fs: improve cpSync no-filter copyDir performance

[dario-piotrowicz]

move the logic in cpSync that copies a directory from src to dest from JavaScript to C++ increasing its performance

Note: this improvement is not applied if the filter option is
provided, such optimization will be looked into separately

---

Example of perf improvement

// index.js
const fs = require('node:fs');
const path = require('node:path');

const fileName = path.basename(__filename);

fs.rmSync('./tmp', { recursive: true, force: true });
fs.rmSync('./tmp-out', { recursive: true, force: true });

fs.mkdirSync('./tmp', { recursive: true });

for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    fs.writeFileSync(`./tmp/file-${i}.txt`, `This is file number ${i}`);
}

for (let i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++) {
    fs.mkdirSync(`./tmp/dir-${i}`);
    for (let j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
        fs.writeFileSync(`./tmp/dir-${i}/file-${j}.txt`, `This is file number ${j} inside dir number ${i}`);
    }
}

fs.cpSync(`./tmp`, `./tmp-out`, { recursive: true });

const runs = 500_000;
for (let i = 0 ; i < runs; i++) {
    fs.cpSync(`./${fileName}`, `./tmp/${fileName}`, { errorOnExist: true });
}

[dario-piotrowicz]

this change is not necessary, however without this additional wait I noticed that a non functioning preserveTimestamps logic would not consistently make this test fail

[dario-piotrowicz]

I can also look into the filter function in this PR if preferred but I figured it could make sense to do attempt that separately

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.34807% with 41 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (c2d4c78) to head (92ed1cf).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/node_file.cc	74.37%	20 Missing and 21 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #58461      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.19%   90.13%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         636      636              
  Lines      187705   187878     +173     
  Branches    36852    36869      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits       169306   169335      +29     
- Misses      11161    11293     +132     
- Partials     7238     7250      +12     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/fs/cp/cp-sync.js	56.96% <100.00%> (-35.25%)	⬇️
src/node_errors.h	87.50% <ø> (ø)
src/node_file.cc	75.56% <74.37%> (-0.54%)	⬇️

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[anonrig]

You can use args.GetIsolate() directly. No need for an environment

[dario-piotrowicz]

but I am using the env in the function below, no? 🤔

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67225/

[dario-piotrowicz]

I was thinking about this throw... and I think that it could be nicer to just throw the EEXIST error from the C++ layer, catch it in the js layer and then throw an ERR_FS_CP_EEXIST error from there (using the appropriate class).

I did not however go with that solution as I think that catching and re-throwing in the js layer interferes with userland debuggers that can catch those as part of options such as Pause on caught exceptions, please let me know if you think I'm wrong and that throwing the error from the js layer could be a better choice here 🙂

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67233/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67238/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67239/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67241/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67245/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67246/

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67247/

[dario-piotrowicz]

ok finally it's all green! (even on windows! 😅)

Sorry @anonrig the PR changed significantly after your review, could you have another look? 🙏

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/67310/

[nodejs-github-bot]

Landed in 3c351c2