Skip to content
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

lib: set stderr._destroy to dummyDestroy #24398

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.
@joyeecheung joyeecheung requested a review from addaleax November 16, 2018 17:46
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. label Nov 16, 2018
@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member Author

joyeecheung commented Nov 16, 2018

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/18680/

(I am not sure how to test this as I bumped into this while working on something else, but that gets fixed once I fixed this...)

@joyeecheung joyeecheung added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Nov 16, 2018
Trott pushed a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2018
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: nodejs#24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Nov 19, 2018

Landed in 71f4d5a

@Trott Trott closed this Nov 19, 2018
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2018
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: #24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2018
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: #24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
@BridgeAR BridgeAR mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2018
4 tasks
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2019
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: #24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
refack pushed a commit to refack/node that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: nodejs#24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Jan 15, 2019
codebytere pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 29, 2019
This seems to be typo: we are setting stdout._destroy instead of
stderr._destroy in the getter of stderr.

PR-URL: #24398
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants