-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
chore(doc): add trace_gc
to diagnostic tooling support document
#42346
Conversation
Review requested:
|
debfe39
to
645657d
Compare
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.
lgtm
I don't know our convention around pro: it provides a unique diagnostic information, leading to solve a unique problem having said that, I am indecisive on this at this point, and will listen to someone's opinion. |
Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback @gireeshpunathil. I fully understand now, why it wasn't on the list. That's being said, I thought about something else: Even if it's integral part of v8 code base, what about the integration with node? Maybe could we test that is integrated properly? or maybe it's not worth it, let me know WDYT. |
definitely worth discussing in diagnostics wg, adding labels. |
Neat 🙌 ! |
discussed in the WG today. We have consensus on adding this to the list. (A governing principle being: tools that are greatly useful and heavily used in the field) |
s/tratce/trace in commit message. |
Didn't get you on this 😅. |
Landed in aea4e1f |
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs#42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs#42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#42346 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Hey node family 👋
Context
A tiny PR that follows the initiative started by @gireeshpunathil here, in the diagnostic WG repo. The goal of this initiative is to re-assess diagnostic tooling and examine how could we improve the current status.
Added
While I read the current diagnostic-tooling-support document, I didn't see the same old
trace_gc
tool, so I added it to the list 🎉Let me know what do you think.
... for further
If it seems ok for the community, we could have a discussion about the documentation: how we could make adoption easier for newcomers, and the regular testing in Node.js CI.
📄 Regarding the documentation, I found these two links: