►
From YouTube: 2020-08-26 JavaScript SIG
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
D
A
B
A
C
I
know
it
was
some
big
changes
pretty
late
in
the
pr
I
made
a
comment.
Yeah
yeah
say:
please
don't
do
this
in
the
future,
but
I
think
for
this
pr.
It's
already
yeah.
B
Okay,
I
think
we
can
get
started.
Let
me
share
my
screen
real
quick.
C
All
right,
so
I
wanted
to
talk
about
this
bug
with
the
hdp
plug-in,
nothing
in
particular
other
than
the
that
what
caused
this
is
interesting
and
is
easy
to
do,
and
we
may
do
that.
We
may
cause
this
bug
in
the
future.
If
we're
not
careful,
but
essentially
the
problem
is,
if
you
look
at
the
http
plugin,
it
imports
a
few
types
from
the
http
module,
but
it
also
imports
request,
which
is
not
a
type,
so
this
actually
turns
into
a
regular
require
in
the
emitted
js,
which
triggers
require
in
the
middle
again.
C
C
So
it
was
fairly
convoluted
here,
and
I
know
the
http
and
https
ones
are
fairly
unique
that
they
rely
on
each
other,
but
just
in
the
future,
please
be
careful
when
you're
writing
instrumentations
not
to
require
the
module
that
you're
instrumenting-
and
this
is
it's
fairly
easy
to
do.
There's
a
there's,
an
open
pr
on
the
contrib
right
now
that
actually
would
cause
this
problem
also,
so
just
in
the
future,
please
be
careful
about
this
type
of
thing.
C
I
know
that
generally
people
are
pretty
careful
and
aware,
but
for
those
that
aren't
aware
of
this
problem,
you
know
that's
why
we
have
that
this
dot
module
requires,
because
that
actually
is
the
part
that
comes
from
require
in
the
middle.
C
C
If
you
need
something
from
like
the
mysql
module,
that's
not
a
type!
You
should
get
it
from
the
module
exports
thing
right,
because
that
already
is
that's
already
required
by
require
in
the
middle.
So
you
don't
cause
a
circular
dependency
error
if
you
just
get
it
from
there.
C
So,
instead
of
doing
import
from
my
sequel
right
where
I
think
it
was
parse
or
something
you
would
just
get
it
from
like
this
dot
module
exports
dot
escape.
Actually,
I
think,
is
right
right.
So
if
you
need
something
from
there,
you
should
get
it
from
here.
C
We
may
even
want
to
think
about
like
a
custom,
linting
rule
or
something
like
that,
but
I'm
not
entirely
sure
how
that
would
work,
because
you
know
we
would
only
like
this
is
not
causing
a
problem
right
now,
although
we
should
probably
do
import
type
just
to
be
safe,
because
that
explicitly
requires
that
the
required
statement
is
not
emitted.
C
Yeah,
we
would
have
to
write
a
custom
winter.
I
started
working
on
a
plug-in
writing
guide,
just
a
document
like
how
to
write
plugins
and
what
types
of
things
you
need
to
look
out
for,
including
this.
C
Just
because
I
I
think
we
should
have
had
one
a
long
time
ago
and
it
it
would
be
better
to
like,
when
people
open
issues
or
pr's
or
stuff
that
caused
this
problem
just
have
somewhere
to
link
to
and
say
yeah.
This
is.
This
explains
why
this
is
a
problem
rather
than
having
to
re-explain
it
on
every
pr.
E
E
Actually,
I
was
thinking
the
same.
We
should
update
the
guide
and
mention
about
these
cases
and
the
approach
as
well
like,
even
if
you
want
to
import
it.
This
is
the
best
way
to
do
it.
Something
like
that.
C
Yeah
exactly
so,
I'm
working
on
that
and
I'll
check
that
in
today
I
also
just
remembered.
I
need
to
release.
E
E
You
are
interrupted
like
in
basically
may
we
can
update
that
guide
itself
instead
of.
A
So
maybe
we
can
add
when
people
are
making
a
pr,
there
is
maybe
for
the
feature,
request
or
something
like
this.
You
have
this
template
and
we
could
basically
include
the
link
to
the
guide.
How
to
write
plugin
would
be
that
possible.
C
A
A
B
C
Yeah
good
idea
today,
I'm
gonna
do
a
release,
not
a
new
version,
but
the
the
new
exporter
modules
are
actually
not
released,
so
I'm
gonna
release
those
today
under
the
current
version.
So
unless
bart
you
have
some
reason,
I
should
not
do
that.
I
think
we
have
to.
C
And
then
I
think
we
should
bump
the
versions
and
do
a
release.
I.
C
C
Yeah
and
I'll
I'll
just
change
all
of
those
imports,
because
I
know
we
import
types
all
the
time.
I'll
change
them
to
be
import
type
from
just
to
be
very
explicit
in
a
pr
just
so
that
we're
sure
that
we're
not
causing
a.
C
C
Okay,
I
am
in
the
process
of
updating
the
the
synchronous,
sdk
change.
I
so
bart
wrote
the
sync
sdk
pr
and
I
had
some
changes
that
I
made
to
it
on
a
a
branch
and
it
has
they've
all
kind
of
become
out
of
date
because
of
the
resource
changes,
because
now
the
resources
are
split
into
their
own
modules
and
stuff.
C
So
I've
been
working
this
morning
on
updating
that
pr
and
resolving
conflicts
and
I'll
open
a
pr
on
my
branch
today
I
was
almost
done
updating
it
before
the
meeting,
but
I
ran
out
of
time
so
expect
that
pr
to
be
open
bart.
Are
you
okay
with
that?
If
I,
if
I
open
a
new
pr
or
would
you
rather
just
merge
my
changes
into
yours.
C
So
I'll
do
that
after
the
meeting
then
and
then
I
haven't
really
had
a
lot
of
time
to
work
on
the
the
new
plug-in
base
plug-in
this
week.
I've
been
working
on
other
stuff,
but
I
am
hoping
to
work
on
that
this
week.
So
I
don't
have
any
changes
from
last
week
on
that
other
than
the
the
proxy
tracing.
C
Pr
that
I'm
hoping
to
merge
today,
so
it
has
four
approvals,
but
I
know
bart,
you
made
a
comment
on
it.
That
made
me.
C
I
didn't
want
to
merge
it
without
specifically
asking
if
you're,
okay
with
it
as
it
is
because
of
this
comment
that
you
made.
A
C
C
Yeah
other
than
that
we
have
a
handful
of
prs
here
that
we
should
get
reviewed
this.
This
one
is,
I
already
approved
this
and
bart
already
approved
this,
and
because
this
is
a
web
thing.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
people
sort
of
hesitate
to
review
the
web
prs,
but
I'd
like
to
get
one
more
approval
on
this,
so
that
we
can
get
it
merged.
C
It's
a
relatively
small
change
and
honestly
with
the
web
stuff
when,
when
bart
approves
something,
it
usually
makes
me
feel
a
little
bit
safer
about
it.
So
hopefully
we
can
get
one
more
approval
there
and
then
kong.
I
noticed
you
added
one
here,
also
yeah,
so
this
is
the
the
resource
detectors.
C
We've
had
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
on
the
reviews
I
have
with
them,
but
it's
in
a
pretty
good
state
now,
so
I
would
appreciate
it
if
people
could
give
that
a
once
over
and
we
can
get
it
merged
and
then
hopefully
we
can
cut
a
release
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
C
This
value
recorder
plug-in
our
plug-in
pr
has
been
open
for
a
long
time.
I
think
yeah
26
days,
so
this
one
also.
I
I
know
that
it's
had
some.
You
know
it's
been
around
for
a
while
and
just
because
it's
old
doesn't
mean
it's
bad.
Please
review.
D
It
yeah
don't
let
the
code
code
scare,
you
and
I'm
open
to
discussion
there,
but
the
code
coverage
failed,
but
I
didn't
really
add
any
new
code.
The
only
new
code
added
in
this
pr
was
to
reference
an
interface
that
the
class
said
it
was
enter
referencing,
but
it
wasn't.
It
was
almost
all
code
deletion,
but
code
coverage
is
just
sort
of
upset
about
it.
If
y'all
really
want
me
to
try
and
figure
out
how
to
fix
that,
I
can,
but
it
seemed
sort
of
silly.
C
No,
it's
no
big
deal
the
so
I
looked
into
this
and
I
agree:
it's
not
a
big
deal,
so
the
issue
is
that,
like
of
the
lines
that
you
technically
added
like
these
are
added
lines
and
this
one
is
not
covered
and
like
because
you
deleted
a
bunch
of
covered
lines.
It
didn't.
It
doesn't
think
that
you
like
it,
the
the
patch
itself
is
only
75
covered,
even
though
you
didn't
actually
really
add
anything.
C
You're
the
overall
coverage
actually
goes
up,
but
because
the
patch
is
not
well
covered,
like
you
deleted
a
bunch
of
lines
and
it
seems
like
the
lines
that
you
deleted
and
that
the
functions
you
were
modifying
were
not
covered
which
counted
against
you
here,
but
then
counted
for
you
here,
because
you
deleted
a
bunch
of
uncovered
stuff.
You
actually
technically
raised
the
coverage,
so
it's
just
a
quirk
of
code
cove.
You
know
for
for
changes
like
this,
where
it's
mostly
deletions
it
doesn't
handle
it
well,
but
I
agree
this
is
not
a
big
deal.
C
C
Just
so
you
guys
know
toward
the
end
of
september.
I
will
be
taking
some
vacation.
I
believe
the
16th
is
a
wednesday,
the
16th
of
september.
I
won't
be
here
I'll
remind
you
guys
as
we
get
closer,
but
just
so
you
know
we'll
need
someone
else
to
run
the
meeting
for
that
day.
B
All
right:
well
then,
I
guess
please
review
the
prs
and
I
will
talk
to
you
all
next
week.