-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.4k
error: document removed error codes #22100
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
Changes from 1 commit
0546c6a
25a533f
208cb4f
9b53c58
dd31ede
1ad00f2
e77d298
e536153
f10d321
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
- Loading branch information
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1848,6 +1848,21 @@ Creation of a [`zlib`][] object failed due to incorrect configuration. | |
| A module file could not be resolved while attempting a [`require()`][] or | ||
| `import` operation. | ||
|
|
||
| <a id="ERR_FS_WATCHER_ALREADY_STARTED"></a> | ||
| ### ERR_FS_WATCHER_ALREADY_STARTED | ||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: v10.0.0 | ||
| --> | ||
| An attempt was made to start a watcher returned by `fs.watch()` that has already been started. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Linter issue: 80 characters per line limit exceeded. |
||
|
|
||
| <a id="ERR_FS_WATCHER_NOT_STARTED"></a> | ||
| ### ERR_FS_WATCHER_NOT_STARTED | ||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: v10.0.0 | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| An attempt was made to initiate operations on a watcher returned by `fs.watch()` that has not yet been started. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Linter issue: 80 characters per line limit exceeded. |
||
|
|
||
| [`--force-fips`]: cli.html#cli_force_fips | ||
| [`'uncaughtException'`]: process.html#process_event_uncaughtexception | ||
| [`child_process`]: child_process.html | ||
|
|
@@ -1890,6 +1905,7 @@ A module file could not be resolved while attempting a [`require()`][] or | |
| [`zlib`]: zlib.html | ||
| [ES6 module]: esm.html | ||
| [Node.js Error Codes]: #nodejs-error-codes | ||
| [Legacy Node.js Error Codes]: #legacy-nodejs-error-codes | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. doh! missed adding the h2 header, fixing it now. Also, realized that I don't really need the link definition at the end of the file, so removed it. |
||
| [V8's stack trace API]: https://github.com/v8/v8/wiki/Stack-Trace-API | ||
| [WHATWG URL API]: url.html#url_the_whatwg_url_api | ||
| [crypto digest algorithm]: crypto.html#crypto_crypto_gethashes | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be nice if we add a "removed: v10.x.x". I guess that might not be parsed properly tough. @vsemozhetbyt do you have a suggestion for this?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We may add the case for removing to adding and deprecating. It seems these two function need to be updated accordingly:
node/tools/doc/common.js
Line 14 in 2bea9ce
node/tools/doc/html.js
Line 258 in 2bea9ce
(Just grepping
'added'or'deprecated'and adding a similar case may do)Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@BridgeAR added these sections (thanks @vsemozhetbyt, for the pointers), now shows up as

Although cc: @joyeecheung , because it seems to me she has some reservations against saying "removed in v10.x.x" .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, should there be a short explanation on why this error code was removed? Something on the lines of
or some such.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@SirR4T I think it's OK to have
removed in, but the version number should be accurate. In the case ofERR_FS_WTCHER_ALREADY_STARTED, it has never been released in any version, since the commit that added it (6c25f2e) and the commit that removed it (301f6cc) are both present from v10.0.0...v10.8.0 - which means when v10.0.0 was out, the error was not even there. Therefore, this error code has only appeared in nightly and canary releases.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we do add a short explanation, we can make this in
changesblocks.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
got it. If the error codes never actually touched the releases, what should the description look like? is having both
added: v10.0.0andremoved: v10.0.0ok?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@joyeecheung : also, I have added versions added and versions removed here, for all the commits which either added or removed the error codes. Eyeballing the versions, it seems to me that the wherever github mentions
vA.a.a .. vB.b.b, we should be mentioning thevB.b.bin the docs. (For both added, as well as removed.) will that be correct?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think annotating them as
added: v10.0.0 removed: v10.0.0is more confusing than helpful. A note in the docs about that would be enough, maybe something like: