Update to v0.14.0-rc3 by JordanMartinez · Pull Request #4 · purescript-node/purescript-node-net

JordanMartinez · 2020-12-11T01:30:33Z

Backlinking to purescript/purescript#3942

JordanMartinez · 2020-12-11T01:30:56Z

CI will fail until node-fs is updated

JordanMartinez · 2020-12-11T02:21:57Z

CI is failing with this error:

[1/1 NoInstanceFound] test/Test/Main.purs:47:13

  47              logShow { _message: "Received some data", buffer }
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
  No type class instance was found for
  
    Data.Show.Show Buffer
  
  while applying a function logShow
    of type Show t2 => t2 -> Effect Unit
    to argument { _message: "Received some data"
                , buffer: buffer
                }
  while checking that expression logShow { _message: "Received some data"
                                         , buffer: buffer
                                         }
    has type t0 t1
  in value declaration main
  
  where t1 is an unknown type
        t0 is an unknown type
        t2 is an unknown type

hdgarrood · 2020-12-11T15:53:00Z

Buffer can’t have a Show instance which provides any useful information because that would violate purity - it’s a mutable reference type. I think the test code should be amended so that we are just showing the result of reading the buffer as a string, not showing the buffer itself.

JordanMartinez · 2020-12-11T20:54:30Z

            bufferString <- toString UTF8 buffer
-            logShow { _message: "Converted to a `String`", buffer, bufferString }
+            logShow { _message: "Converted to a `String`", bufferString }
          Right string -> logShow { _message: "Received some data", string }


I thought this would make a bigger difference, but apparently not:

{ _message: "Received some data", bufferBinary: "Hello socket\nServer is ending connection\n" } { _message: "Converted to a `String`", bufferString: "Hello socket\nServer is ending connection\n" }

I'm not sure if this is correct behavior or not, but I don't think it should hold up a 0.14.0-rc3 merge.

What did you expect? This looks reasonable to me.

As described in https://nodejs.org/api/buffer.html#buffer_buffers_and_character_encodings, "Binary" is a deprecated alias for "latin1". This particular string only includes ASCII characters, which means that it decodes the same way regardless of whether you interpret it as latin1 or utf-8. You'd only see differences if you had code points above 127.

I'm going to merge this to get this done, but should we drop the 'bufferBinary' one completely since 'Binary' is deprecated (and so I imagine we'll remove it at some point in the future)?

Yeah that sounds good to me

Just keep in mind that we need to preserve compatibility back to the last supported Node version.

I checked, and binary was aliased to latin1 all the way back in Node 10, so perhaps it's safe to only provide latin1 here.

But perhaps the philosophy of this library is to stay faithful to the underlying supported encodings, in which case we would include 'binary', even though it's considered deprecated and simply an alias for latin1.

I meant removing the line in these tests which calls toString Binary, not removing the Binary constructor itself. (That's probably worth discussing too, though).

thomashoneyman

👍 as far as 0.14.0-rc3 changes go.

JordanMartinez added 3 commits December 10, 2020 17:28

Update to v0.14.0-rc3 purescript

d7ec7aa

Add psa flags to pulp test

aaf1755

Fix bower dependencies

b5b0a87

Update package.json

e40f5bd

Provide alternative way to show Buffer

6d6d85f

JordanMartinez commented Dec 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

thomashoneyman approved these changes Dec 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

thomashoneyman mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2020

Core library updates for 0.14 purescript/purescript#3942

Closed

57 tasks done

JordanMartinez merged commit 2ba2d18 into purescript-node:master Dec 12, 2020

JordanMartinez deleted the updateTo14 branch December 12, 2020 01:25

Conversation

JordanMartinez commented Dec 11, 2020

Uh oh!

JordanMartinez commented Dec 11, 2020

Uh oh!

JordanMartinez commented Dec 11, 2020

Uh oh!

hdgarrood commented Dec 11, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thomashoneyman left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

thomashoneyman left a comment •

edited

Loading