[10.x] Revert 17907: util: change inspect depth default#20089
Closed
jasnell wants to merge 2 commits intov10.x-stagingfrom
Closed
[10.x] Revert 17907: util: change inspect depth default#20089jasnell wants to merge 2 commits intov10.x-stagingfrom
jasnell wants to merge 2 commits intov10.x-stagingfrom
Conversation
This reverts commit 8f15309.
This reverts commit b994b8e. This caused regressions in ecosystem code. While the change originally was semver-major and could be postponed until after Node.js 10, I think reverting it is a good choice at this point. Also, I personally do not think defaulting to a shallow inspect is a bad thing at all – quite the opposite: It makes `util.inspect()` give an overview of an object, rather than providing a full display of its contents. Changing the `depth` default to infinity fundamentally changed the role that `util.inspect()` plays, and makes output much more verbose and thus at times unusable for `console.log()`-style debugging. Fixes: #19405 Refs: #17907
nodejs-github-bot
added
repl
Member
Author
jasnell
changed the title
aks-
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2018
joyeecheung
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2018
addaleax
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2018
cjihrig
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2018
devsnek
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2018
jasnell
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2018
This reverts commit b994b8e. This caused regressions in ecosystem code. While the change originally was semver-major and could be postponed until after Node.js 10, I think reverting it is a good choice at this point. Also, I personally do not think defaulting to a shallow inspect is a bad thing at all – quite the opposite: It makes `util.inspect()` give an overview of an object, rather than providing a full display of its contents. Changing the `depth` default to infinity fundamentally changed the role that `util.inspect()` plays, and makes output much more verbose and thus at times unusable for `console.log()`-style debugging. Fixes: #19405 Refs: #17907 PR-URL: #20089 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
Member
Author
4 tasks
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Member
72549aa looks like it's from master whereas this PR landed on v10.x-staging. The test builds for #19091 all appear to have a date in the directory name, e.g., https://nodejs.org/download/test/v10.0.0-test20180417fa00e9cc5b/ |
Contributor
|
@richardlau Yes, sorry, I've tested with https://nodejs.org/download/rc/v10.0.0-rc.1/ and it is OK. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
9 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Same as #20017 but targeted specifically to v10.x-staging
Ping @addaleax @Trott @TimothyGu @cjihrig @joyeecheung
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes