Merged tschaub/mock-fs into Slayer95/mock-fs for getting Node 8 support #1
Conversation
Only override process.binding('fs')
Document breaking changes in the upcoming 4.0.0-beta.1 release
* Useful for tests where you wish to make 'general' assertions over the whole filesystem (e.g. security testing!) * Also addresses an issue where the bindings were having 'extraneous' keys left when the mock was restored. (Was unable to provide an isolated test for this as the 'bindings' part is internal to the mock.
…ystem Exposes the root mocked filesytem if the mock is currently applied.
Binding.open not following symlinks correctly
…haub#197) Node 7.7 changed the behavior of the `binding.{stat,lstat,fstat}` functions (see nodejs/node#11522). This updates the binding functions used in mock-fs to match the new Node binding behavior, while still maintaining compatibility with old Node versions. The new behavior is detected when the second argument to `binding.{stat,lstat,fstat}` is a `Float64Array`, which would be an invalid argument for previous versions of the binding.
…at-lstat-fstat Update fs.stat(), fs.lstat(), and fs.fstat() for Node 7.7+ (fixes tschaub#197)
Add support for fs.mkdtemp and fs.mkdtempSync
Fixing test failures on node 8
Two unrelated updates
| @@ -65,7 +75,7 @@ describe('The API', function() { | |||
| mock.restore(); | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| it('uses the real fs module in require() calls', function() { | |||
| xit('uses the real fs module in require() calls', function() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The whole point of this fork is that this test should pass :|
|
My bad ... didn't realize that part in the merge ... the tests are erroring out with Node 8, so attempted if this could be a quickfix. Like tschaub#203, would it be possible for you to extend support to Node 8 ? |
|
I definitely want to extend support to Node 8. However, there have been plenty of non-trivial changes in the Node.js internals, specially regarding I am currently leaning towards the second option. However, working out the details is not my top priority right now. |
|
Thanks for considering ... Closing my invalid PR :-) |
No description provided.