Node.js Node-API Team, 8 Jul 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Node.js N-API Team meeting - July 8 2019

Description

https://github.com/nodejs/bootstrap/issues/114

A

So welcome to the napi team meeting for July, 8th 2019, we'll follow our standard approach and agenda first uh before we go through the mouse Thomas. Does anybody have any announcements they'd like to share.

A

If not, ok, let's move on to the list. That's in milestone, so first of all, Jim has mentioned he might have to duck head. So let's look at the ones that he's working on first, so I know. One of them is the SQLite port.

B

Yes, exactly so hey I've got. Oh, my gosh I've got all of the MOCA tests running except one and the one that's failing is like gotta, be the most trivial one, so they they wanted to throw an error. If so many attempts to access the class without the constructor without a new yeah.

C

B

Got to figure out how that was working before and what I mean it's trivial. It's like compared to everything else, it's trivial, so I want to get that. I want to get that pushed so that that's out in public, so people can see that the CI will run the CI on it and see how that works under whether it works under all of the CI conditions.

B

Then my next step is to look at replacing libuv with async worker I'm, very optimistic, and if we can make that work, then I can write up an article that explains, if you're, using Lib UV, just for a very simple asynchronous work. Here's how you can use async worker instead, now that.

D

Would be really good yeah so.

B

Anyway, that, that's that that's, where we're out of that I feel really good about it.

A

B

Like she's, making really.

A

Good progress, yes, long, look.

B

A

Seeing that, and you know, yeah, ok, great and.

B

Then the other thing, the other outstanding things I have are the note comfy you I've not heard back from them. Their deadline for notifications is July, 31st, ok and then I've also not heard from the node J sumit or that nodejs interactive I've not heard back from them. I, don't know if any of you guys have heard back from them. I haven't.

A

Heard anything I did hear they were trying to get it done fairly quickly, but I I submitted many and I've not heard anything so I, don't think any of you. Notifications have gone out yet. Oh maybe.

B

I'm confused here, maybe the July 31st is on the node is interactive and it may be. The note come for you is indeterminate right.

E

B

As soon as I hear word, I'll get word out to you guys yeah yeah.

A

I know I, don't think on either of them, they're still working on it. Okay,.

B

All right, that's everything: I have Michael, okay,.

A

Great so we'll flip back to milestones, so any P I feature suggestion to consider.

A

Yeah, okay and I.

E

A

Still haven't really looked at it in detail, yet.

A

E

E

From Timothy is that.

E

Need to have a parameter that represent the length, the depth and the number of parameters. Is it right, I.

A

E

We need to change this function. Yeah. We could have an additional.

A

Method, which would add that seems odd, that meant that as an option, yeah.

E

Okay: okay, now.

A

The property descriptor so think, that's, okay, doing so would be pose.

A

For the job for JavaScript functions,.

F

C

D

Get this: it is this length property need something special could like. You know you could just like not be defined property afterwards, so, like I, don't get.

C

It I think it may be the length of the parameters so.

D

It discounts on some new part of the spec that that functions have this length property that tells you how many parameters they take.

A

Yeah I don't know either I haven't had a chance to look at it to the point where I understand, let's see why don't we do a very quick.

A

Ocean dot length, yeah.

C

A

Number of it sprite primers, expected by the function I.

E

E

E

Do so this evening like right feet.

A

Okay right so that that's what I was guessing that it's basically because you're defining a function here, which is your constructor function, right, I, guess, yeah.

D

In what okay, so a plane function, in the other case right.

A

And right, if you, if you know the length of parameters, then specifying it like, like Nicolas said that was my guess is somehow that lets the engine, then optimize yeah.

D

Okay but I mean I still don't understand why I mean okay, he's saying, while it's possible to redefine the length property after the function class has been created, doing so could be slow and error-prone.

D

If we would, we would just be, we would just be wrapping to an API calls into one at that point. Yes,.

G

A

Really it gives you more of a hint that it's useful in doing it. Yeah.

C

E

I'm gonna sell some we've discussed.

A

Like it's, do we say we're creating a creat function.

A

Better option I thought party would did not cuz I guess today we would not have set that length property at all right.

D

No, no, no, we don't know I.

F

Guess it's wicking nappy.

G

Something right, yeah.

D

F

D

Be said, property.

F

H

A

That sound like a reasonable response: okay, okay, we'll do that we'll see move on from there yeah.

D

There have been a few other suggestions in terms of an API there's, the the module thing that they're lingering around I'm happy to see that we've had some push back from Anna as well and from Gus you guys so yeah I'm not inclined to just to just drop that and then there's there's a proposal from Anna to to to add something called like, like like module data, basically yeah. So basically, currently a you know, avoiding global static variables is possible, but but, as she said, it's not organ Amish because you'd have to.

D

You have to pass the void star to all your function, declarations and then retrieve them using navigates in the info. Yeah you're there and and navigate see being for is a fairly expensive call.

D

So so what she's proposing is that we we have. We have that leased or module data directly in like a local environment that that is unique to each module and we we had a local environment before like when we started an API. We had each module has its own environment, yes, which to having a shared environment, because we had object, template stored in the environment, and so the object templates had to be one for each for each sort of JavaScript world.

D

Otherwise, you know, map beans themselves would fail and stuff like that when they should move. But now we don't have any more object templates there. So we only have just well. We have one persistent reference to the last exception on the environment, but that's that's it that that doesn't need to be shared, but it went there because we there will only ever be one single JavaScript environment is not multi-threaded, so there won't be multiples of those right.

D

It's good to share that, but we could use local data as well specifically for this purpose, and so the proposal is to is to split the environment into two pieces. So so, when we create callback data for for wrapping an API call backs, we would store a pointer in the callback data that would be unique to each module and that pointer would contain a pointer to the shared portion of the environment. And so so so so, then, basically, you could add, like per module instance data, and so it would make it a lot easier.

D

You instead of saying that to get CB info or in every binding, perhaps unnecessarily, because if the binding doesn't take any parameters, if it's just a 0 parameter function, then you don't want to call nap to get the info on that. You could call like nappy, gets instance data and then you you would have. Basically, though your your global static as it were, so it really would actually it would actually be kind of like UVU we get key.

D

You know like a UV, we have this like thread-local storage, and so you get a pointer from the thread-local storage using UV get key, so this would be kind of the same. So.

A

Why wouldn't it just.

C

Be on the end because the well the end budget is today it's shared right right. If we went back to it, you know you said we no longer need that yeah yeah! No, it would be stored on the end yeah right. Yes, so ok.

D

But basically, what I'm saying is that it's, it's still a good idea to have a share to end right, but I think we should also have a local end in addition to that. Well,.

A

But I know I mean like I guess. My question is: why wouldn't the end for the module be local like or not be M be the local one.

D

Well because well, yeah II did it just yeah I'm, not 100%, clear on that I have to see how the implementation goes, but basically, basically there will be two things: there will be a map en than that below : right, uh mappy, local and will be instantiated every time module is instantiated right and and then the nappy local M will end up being stored in like a callback bundle. So.

A

I'm still wondering why, like the M that is passed in like we, you know an M gets passed in, that has to be passed around yeah.

D

A

Wouldn't that be the.

D

Local one well because we still store some stuff on the end, like we stored a number of open handles, and the last exception and and stuff like that, and that I believe should be shared. You know.

C

I guess, even if you.

D

Want to share that, though, that the local M could point to exactly exactly that's right. That's right! The local NF could point to the shared n. That's exactly what I'm planning on doing right so, but.

A

In that case, the M that you get passed in so you're, basically like set key or whatever it would be called, would just be on the ends.

D

Exactly yeah yeah, it would be, it would be just just just just room for a single point or a void star on the start line, and that's it exactly so so then so then. Basically the only difference would be that you know when, when when v8 calls the the central callback for an API, we retrieve the callback bundle and it contains a local end from the local end.

D

We dereference the the shared end and then we pass it into the module right and then the module does whatever it wants and it comes back and then and then basically.

C

But now why don't we.

D

Pass the sheer M to the module. Why not? Because it's because because all the api's are written to accept this share, then right, but are they they're there.

A

D

A note they can no, no because when it comes back into our API like when, when the module makes an API call, it expects an a PN, not something else right and then a PM is currently shared right, but it doesn't have to be. Is that? ah But if we don't, if we don't, then then now we're copying all the callback order, all all the scope counters we're copying the persistent we're copying all that stuff. So so, basically, what we can do, though, is is inside the local.

D

We can point to the share, then right, and so we dereference that we pass in the shared end right and then only those api's well, okay, actually one more thing needs to happen. We need to. We need to be four: we calling to the module. We need to a store. The local lamp on the share then write temporarily, but why.

A

Why, like I I'm, still not quite understanding, why we don't just pass the local one around and then win the because existing calls when they need the share, then.

D

Get it from the local one because most calls most calls need to share them, and the local lamp doesn't have any information on it, except it will have a pointer to this local data, which is not useful to any of the api's except those dealing with the local data, and then it has a pointer to the share them. That's all it has all right so so so all the other api's cannot use that right. Yeah they'd have to do another interaction. Exactly exactly you think performance wise.

D

It would be best to Japan so share them around and and and and create a new field on the shared end, which holds the local ends, and that field would only be of interest to these new api's right. How does that work? If there's multiple threads running workers yeah? If there are multiple workers, then there are multiple global objects. In fact, you don't even need to go as far as multiple workers.

D

If you just use VM context, if I you get multiple global objects: okay, Oh each each module, there's still a separate em, exactly yes, yes, so so the local ends would be. Would be per module instance, which which not? Which means perhaps more than one per worker, but definitely distinct in terms of the local context and distinguishable, because node environment makes things distinguishable right. Cuz.

A

I guess it's only the performance side that makes any sense to me like yeah. Otherwise you were having to do like some some extra work to try and tell you what the local one is. Yeah.

D

Yeah exactly that's right, yeah yeah! So so, and it also minimizes the diff, because nappy hands is the thing that holds all the counters, the last exception and and so forth right. So so you know, and- and there is- that is shared right now- that's how we made it. It is shared so, but it wasn't at one point right: no, no, it wasn't but but but that that's because we were willing to to to sacrifice or we were willing to allow duplication of all these counters and variables and suffering.

D

We even allowed application of object templates, which was wrong, but now that we don't have object templates. Yes, there isn't that the motivation to have it shared, isn't as great as it once was right, but but it's still good to have it shared, because eventually we may need a shared portion for other reasons, that we cannot anticipate and we will certainly need a local portion right. But it's it's.

A

The you can still get it, it's just that you have the indirect for the like. It's, which one do you indirect to it seems more natural to indirect, to the shared one than to the local one.

D

Yeah I I'm, not sure which way it's gonna go right, so so, but the bottom line is nappy. N is the name that has everything on it. If we don't share that, then we're copying everything on it right. So so it.

A

Doesn't have to copy.

D

Its you just put.

A

It into something that you interact to write.

A

Like you could do that, it might be a little slower or you could copy it like you said, or you could well.

D

I mean we could redefine a PMF to have nothing on it right and then, and then the nappy local end has everything or or we call it a nappy shared them at that point and, and that has everything on it- yeah, basically, basically I'm gonna, try to see both approaches and and which one the one that results in the least amount that acts on the code is the one I'm gonna go with so I'm gonna try both things yeah, but it's it's basically just a matter of nomenclature.

D

It's either gonna be a pair of nappy and nappy local end or a pair of nappy and vanetti shared end and we're all these quarters reside. Yeah will be determined by by the the least impact on the core yeah okay yeah. So this is this is one proposal, another thing also coming from Ana, and actually we have this this.

D

This whole problem with with with environment, cleanup right, which is sort of ongoing, where the the the week, the week callbacks, aren't getting called when the environment is getting shut down, and so so we were gonna attach those we were going to attach for each week call back an environment cleanup handler there. Oh, so there are two things going on with that. The performance is definitely one thing and I'm still looking for a package where, where we can, where we can test this and Nicola Nicolas, you suggested, which one was that. Can you remind.

B

D

So I did that I did that and it turns out that neither level down nor rocks TB use any weak references at all at run time. They only use bindings which, which now at which, with this modification, have weak reference is but, and they are being tracked, but they are there. They and and III commented I answered your comment. There, Michael yeah, they don't like the way. We retrieve the data for for a call into any into the add-on that hasn't changed. With this change. It's only yeah.

D

It's only the the setting up the binding and tearing down the binding that becomes a little heavier so so so we're safe in that sense, that that was the.

A

Part of was mostly worried about was the internal mechanics where we use them, because more people would get those than people who use wheat graphs right. What having more people would get those well any anybody who's. Anybody who is basically using creating functions, which, I think is everybody yeah having some of those references behind the scenes right, yeah now, I guess since we've since we've changed it, so that it's only on worker threads.

D

But even if we didn't change that, even if we change that, when you call nappy create function now, it does a little bit more work right right. But you know most add-ons do that during in it and then never again right.

A

If it's only once or twice, then you're? Okay, it's like you, said if there's a function: Factory, yes,.

D

Yes, function, factory's function, factories are a problem, yeah I agree so, but I haven't.

A

D

A lot of add-ons that use function, factories and I. Guess it's not an issue.

A

If, like for the main thread, it won't be an issue anyway, right, yeah,.

D

Yeah yeah yeah yeah I mean we are minimizing impact as much as possible and those those those were really good insights to to actually you know, sort of lop off them, but the the main threat from though from the whole affected area, so I think my comment was it's probably low risk.

A

Too, because of that, it's you know to find something that would actually be affected. We other than the you know the checking, if we're the main threat or not, if that's somehow, really expensive other than that check, you'd actually need something which does a lot of that, like as a function Factory and doesn't.

D

A

Work her to be able to tell yeah.

D

Yeah yeah, yeah and- and it's not just it's not just for bindings right I mean if I can find a module somewhere that is very, very popular and that uses weak references. Then then we have a then we have a case study yeah, but the funny thing is I haven't found any, but I did find a couple and I posted them on the on the avoid future breakage issue that that are super popular on the order of thousands of downloads a week and and which were not listed there.

D

So so that's actually great news for an API like they don't use weak references. So it didn't help me in this regard. That wasn't one thing that.

A

Came to mind is remember: you pointed out there was the one person who repeated reported an issue. Memory leak do to find doodles I mean basically due to the the different finalization I wonder if that's one to reach out to him and drop yes. Yes, yes, excellent! That's that that's a good idea! Yeah I'll have to find that issue with with them.

D

Yeah because there was a recent.

A

Issue were like I. Basically, when I looked at it again said: okay, wait a sec, we're actually doing this more often than we need to, and we basically just do a direct delete instead of a deferred delete in those cases. Yep I think that would be a good one to try it, because obviously he had a lot of references coming and going. Yes.

D

Yes, that's a good point yeah. If I can, if I can find a module in that issue, then I'll definitely well a module and a benchmarking suite for the module yeah yeah. Then I'll have a look at that. That's that's a good pointer yeah. So the other thing with with this issue is that, and this this is potentially a no op for us.

D

Is that and I saying that you know the the ECMA spec nowadays defines the concept of an agent which is which is basically one-to-one with like an old environment right, so so like a JavaScript world, whereas, whereas until now the spec only concerned itself with what's in that world, now it's beginning to concern itself with the world itself.

D

You know so by defining these agents and and and Anna's arguing that, because of that, the the the environment clean up hook should be part of of j/s native API, rather than node API right those there, because any and all implementers of any API should address this. Given that now agents are part of the spec, so what the agents, let you do well as far as I can tell agent, is defined as as, basically everything that is necessary to to run JavaScript it may have, it may have more than one global and so forth.

D

Yeah, you may want to type ECMAScript, spec and agent I. Think it's section, eight point: seven! If I remember correctly,.

H

What is an agent know.

D

Yeah, let me try and see if I can. Okay.

D

Here we go eight point, seven yeah, so so section eight point: seven of ecma-262 left me paste that chat.

I

D

Yeah there's a sidebar and everything if you go there so there it.

H

I

D

Yeah so a set of ECMA execution context.

D

So so, basically, the fact that that it has an executing thread that that puts it right on par with with note environment.

A

Okay, so it's basically I'd probably take a little longer to read, but it's there's a point where cleanup should be done: yeah.

D

A

Not sure I mean I, guess the browser's would have to or the JavaScript engines would then have to do. Something, though right like you, may know that they need to run finalizes or yeah.

D

I'm not sure how that works right, because because the the interaction between the JavaScript engine and a native codes is not part of the spec right right, so so the whole the whole concept of externals of week references. This is all this is all informal right. That's based on the.

C

D

Are being added to the spec I think.

D

A

Okay, well, there.

D

Was a discussion that the.

A

Last collaborator summit and weak refs are being added even to the point where I asked about GC on, like GC those weak refs on exit yep, and the answer was no. So.

D

So, even if they get added to the spec, we're not gonna get DC, so we still have to do all this right. Yeah.

A

Yeah it's cuz thinking, otherwise it would be like well, if there's an agent, it's like Morse, maybe it's more that we need to make the the add-on look like an agent to the thread to the work or so when the work or the worker look like an agent so that when the worker finishes it, you know it gets its cleanup, but it was then it was that like running, finalized errs on exit is quite complicated and you know you're basically exiting completely so you don't necessarily meet that right.

A

Well, yeah, in the case of in the case of of exit.

D

Right, this is a different case right. Well, no, it's not! This is this. Is uh this is X? This is exactly exit right, yeah,.

C

D

When you're on a worker thread right, you're only exiting a thread you're, not exit.

I

D

So so so then, so then notifying the native side of all these cleanups is super important yeah. Otherwise, otherwise, if you have I mean, if you have a threat, prove it threads that not acquit, then you don't have a problem but not like a threat factory. Then you're gonna have a memory leak right. So is there a case.

A

I guess there's workers in in the browser and those workers could they currently use native code? That would then lead this cleanup.

D

Potentially, but but in a browser, all the code is under one roof and it's controlled centrally. So sorry, so you know that they could have our registry of native things that they need to clean up. They could already be doing this. Essentially you know so, but but with node right, we need to. We need to come up with sort of an open standard for this, rather than just rather than just having an internal specification.

A

hmm What's this cleanup finalization group.

D

Yeah we actually have this and an and Gus's Gus's implementation of an API in JavaScript actually uses this right. Oh he here he he needs to run node with harmony. We graphs united to obtain this.

A

Right, I'm just wondering us: it's like this. This you got the week graphs. Is this grouping somehow a way to say, hey.

A

Okay, so no, this is still because I think in here. Let's see this is I.

G

Look at clothes.

G

A

To point you at the discussion.

F

Pretty sure hopeless onyx.

G

D

A

I'm, just lookin cuz I thought there would there I. Think of this was the repo where little Dan opened a issue saying afterlife. There was discussion at the collaborator summit when I asked that he opened initiator to discuss it, but basically the the conclusion was: wouldn't do it until there was some actually motivating factor.

D

Well, I, don't know if this counts as a motivating factor, because because again they you know here we go this. Is they don't necessarily care? Oh here we go.

A

Right this was basically on exit, but if it's the, if it's there, something else that exits that effectively needs them to run right.

A

I'm aware they almost like okay, so here on the web, they'll most likely not be run on page exit.

D

I

Also, like process exit.

A

I

A

The one I was talking about right, like when, when your process like node exits with the you know, the GC run through and run all the finalized errs and.

A

I asked cuz I'm, pretty sure there was an option to do that in Java mm-hmm, but I'm just wondering if somehow this like in Java, there ends up only being one heap. So there's really only one place. You know you you'll get. Your final is a ssin of all objects as long as you're still running, but it but it in our case. It's like.

A

We have multiple JavaScript, exactly that's right, armen's in the same process and therefore one of those can exit and it's using its own heap, and you don't get your final answers run there. That's a different thing right. Exactly yes, yes, I mean little C's as soon as you can handle that you could handle the X that exit now an exit case too right. Well,.

D

Yeah but I mean how do you handle that right? You.

A

Have to have something that walks through and basically says all objects that are still alive. I'm gonna run the finalizes because I know effectively. The objects are becoming unreachable, right, yeah.

D

Exactly but but that's that's, that's the environment clean up hook, right now, right so so, I mean given, given that there seems to be an explicit choice on the on the part of the of the spec to not run these finalizer than if we run these finalized errs, because we have to because we have this multiple heap situation going on right, then this is not part of the spec right, and so, where we put, these cleanup handlers is just right, which is no. They P I, rather than J S native API right.

A

But in the cases it sounded like, though there was a thought that the agents might run into the same problem.

D

Exactly yeah yeah, so so I mean this issue is still open. So yes, so.

C

Maybe it's where he comes into.

D

The question yeah.

A

Maybe you could comment on there and say what about this situation? Yeah.

D

Yeah yeah, okay, okay, good yeah,.

A

That is thought. Maybe you could comment and say: hey, okay,.

I

So that will be pasted out here. I'll paste it in the chat.

D

There you go all right, excellent.

A

Okay, good, so because that might help like, if it's still clear, no we're, never gonna run them there. Then it's like okay, you know, you've got an argument for it being note specific.

D

Well, yeah yeah cuz it cuz like the thing is: a browser will always be controlled by a single entity. Right and, and no web page will ever have have have access to two to native code right and so.

C

D

No! No! No! That's that. That's a whole that that is yet another heap right. If you think about it, I mean, if you have malloc inside wasn't then that whole heap gets dumped. Windowpane.

A

Okay, no yeah! So that's it's not that it's native! It's that we've got threads, but there's worker threads in the browser too right. They don't have the.

D

Right right, yeah, but all you can do inside worker threads is raw JavaScript or wasn't right. So so then you know that the entire JavaScript engine is one heap. If they have some native bindings, then it's the JavaScript or if the browser's responsibility to clean those up right. But but again the browser is is, is is maintained by a single team of people who can all agree on a strategy right.

A

D

A

The inner the was the implementation could say: okay, I know this page or module is done so I'm gonna free up exactly that's right, which.

D

Is kind of what we're doing in this case right, yeah except except we don't control the code and we don't know what's gonna happen in the finalized errs. All we know is that we need to provide the means to to to clean this stuff up, because we're gonna have a leak, yeah right. So so so you know our our and API is in. It is kind of a de-facto standard, and so we need to. We need to think in terms of standards rather than in terms of actual performing the work.

A

Yeah, no yeah, it's interesting to see which, where it belongs, yeah, yeah, okay, so yeah I, think commenting in there and understanding he pushes it one way or the other makes sense. Yeah.

D

Yeah, so so that was, these were some of the proposals that that are on the table. That I'm aware of yeah.

A

I think I'd be you know. You mentioned the the module. You know I think I'm. Okay, unless there's somebody strongly pushing for that to leave it as it was yeah.

D

A

D

I'm kind of pushing for that honestly, because I I just wanted to see I just wanted to see what other people think, but but I think the consensus is that it is not really a normal thing to do to expose a native add-on directly. It is supposed to be fronted by a JavaScript module. You know so you know, and and as far as I can tell you know, 99.99999% of the time it is fronted by by via JavaScript modules. So if it's not then well, you know, please inform your users that henceforth it will be.

D

You know great, so.

A

Yeah I mean I, think this cuz I, don't I I, don't I really don't think we want to expose the module object itself. I could be convinced on a few things like the path name, but it sounds like even at that it's hard to yeah because you across.

D

The different eco module systems right exactly yeah, yeah yeah, so I I, didn't know. I didn't know that that that the module path would be an issue with the ESM. But if it is, then then it makes sense to not even expose that because then again we're we're forming an opinion here. Yeah I mean.

A

It's actually how you only get one or the other, but but it just sounds like if it's a really you know if it's it's a rare use case and there's another way to go around it, the chance of us getting us we're getting it wrong, just isn't worth the risk. Yeah.

D

Even even in the even in the the most compelling case for for doing this, which which was that that one issue we had where yeah module needed to retrieve the configuration file from the same directory as the module and and that there was no fronting JavaScript yeah module, even in that case there was a solution. Okay, it was costly, but it was there. So so it is possible to retrieve the pass if you really really really really really really really want to yeah.

D

So you know and and we're talking about we're talking about an ongoing project in the case of the native add-on, and so so you know requesting buying from from the consumers of the project to change the way they load the module. Yes, it's it's it's suboptimal, but once done it, you know it frees you up for the rest of time, essentially, as we can tell so, yeah basically I think I'm, just gonna comment to that effect and close the issue.

D

If somebody wants to reopen it or if somebody wants to you to add another argument, then by all means I mean we can always revisit this, but I think from Coates it's safe to not do that. Okay,.

A

Okay, so let's move on we've gotthis I think just a few minutes left. So what should go on any pr5 I.

A

Think you taken a few steps. There's a few back ports going on right next step, anything else to discuss on this one, nor no.

D

I think I think it's pretty much all set once those lands. There's just gonna, be one more round of backports, which is to just mark things as stable, and that's it to just. You know. We rearranged, oh, if that's for, for experimental, okay, so.

A

Okay, so in the show er slanted.

F

A

Basically, to add version 5 right.

D

A

H

H

Okay, sorry, oh there's! No back.

A

On that one okay, additionally sink worker variance, I, don't know there was anything new to report on that one nope, no.

A

This one I saw you marked the few modules that are using an epi.

D

Which was good data yeah yeah I was happy to see that I mean Louie Gingka has has has has two of them that are super popular and and they're they're, both using an API now excellent and those ones use an API directly or use. No doubt on idea. I, don't remember. One of I saw one that was like super short like the whole binding was only like 15 lines or so okay, that one was using no, that on API but I think the other ones are using an API directly. Okay,.

A

Because I, just from the download counts, like I, think on it unknown add-on API, we have something like two hundred and seventy thousand, so I was thinking. These numbers might at least some of them like the 206 might not include that yeah.

D

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah; no, no, they they are distinct to some extent yeah. So that's good.

A

And we already talked about this cool eight ports, I, don't think there's any other major new issues raised the repo that.

D

I'm aware of I haven't checked recently, but I think there's a few PRS and know that on API that are ready to land all yeah yeah I was trying to land some of them, but I was having trouble with the with the CI. So I need to ask like we have this no tests, no dad on API new and or can I go back to using the old one. The old one No.

A

So the new one is the one to use okay, one.

D

A

Were you having because it ought to be working yeah.

D

Okay, well, I did it. This was not recently, so it may have been fixed since oh, yes, yeah.

D

Yeah, so one thing I noticed was that if, when I was submitting jobs in in in quick succession for four different for different PRS, it seemed to be building the code for, for an old like, like I, did I submitted the code for for the thread-safe function and then, when I submitted the code for something else, it was still failing with with messages from the thread-safe function. I mean maybe I read it wrong, but that's what it looked like it. Okay, so one thing that.

A

Is easy to get confused is when you've run this top-level one yeah getting the wrong version of these guys like.

D

I actually never run this because I don't know how to run this this job for for a particular PR like how do you run this for a particular period, doesn't have that configuration stuff? Ok, well, that could be it's probably not set up to do that yeah. So I always just run like the jobs for right.

A

Ok, she ran the right. You just ran these guys yeah.

A

But yeah I, don't know why it would I mean basically does a check out of the current stuff and test it. So I, don't know how it would have been building something previous.

D

Yeah, maybe I read it wrong, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna, try again and and see if I can get two tests passing for the majority of these uh yeah yeah.

A

I I had to update that because there were issue like we were adding in CentOS and we needed a new like we needed the selector to do the right thing and in fact smartass was having problems I. Think because of that to actually know it anyway, it's the new ones been running fine, the last, while all.

D

Right, so so, okay, so so that that's good, that's good advice, I'll just run the all the time yeah, sometimes.

A

I do have problems yeah, like the old one actually probably will now fail, because we've added in CentOS- and there was a smart off thing, but the new one is that I should probably delete the old one. Okay, um the and is it still in the list of let's see here, did I take it out of here, I think I took it at least took it out of the list, yeah um yeah. What was I think.

B

A

Mostly around adding the new platforms, but the other thing that I do sometimes see is if the Knightley's haven't succeeded, you can end up with a persistent failure like if it tries to download and can't download and unzip a binary there.

I

Are problems too so? Okay,.

D

All right well anyway, I'll keep chugging away at that and and then they did, they will. Hopefully, land sounds.

A

Good, okay, so I think that's it for this week. Do unless somebody else has something else to talk about Gabriel.

B

You've got a workshop this week.

D

Yeah but I don't think it's gonna happen. I haven't seen, I haven't gotten any feedback on it. Oh I'm.

B

Sorry, oh no yeah.

D

Well, it is what it is I don't know. Maybe maybe I'll try again into fall. Maybe people are on vacation or something yeah.

A

Summer might be a harder time: yeah I mean.

D

When was it gonna, be it's July 11th? What is that Thursday, this Thursday yeah yeah.

A

I can see if there did the no Jess I can't retweet it I. Don't.

D

Think so it was just you and and a few other people cuz.

A

We could ask them too, but it may be a bit late for you now yeah.

D

Exactly yeah I and I'm fairly new Bishop. This so I'm not surprised that I'm not very good at advertising, but but I called this one off and then we can try getting them in the fall. One. Okay, blur that's busy with yeah.

A

Summer is probably a tough time yeah.

D

And then maybe we'll do it with the with the nodejs account and stuff yeah cuz.

A

I'm sure, if I I'm sure, if we you know email them and said hey, this is going on, can you retweet it yeah sure so.

D

Yeah now I know what I have to do internally at Intel to to get to set up, so I can probably get more lead time. Alright,.

A

Yeah sounds good. Alright,.

D

So yeah so we'll we'll try once more with feeling, okay and then.

B

I'm gonna be I'm, gonna be traveling Monday, so I will not next a week from today, I'll be traveling. Okay, so okay I'll see you in two weeks: yep. Okay,.

A

Sounds good we'll all talk to you later. Alright, nobody.