util: fix inspect indentation of detached DataView - #66421
Kjubikstronk wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
formatExtraProperties() raised ctx.indentationLvl before reading the property. The getters of a detached DataView throw, so the level was never lowered again, and the DataView and everything inspected after it in the same call ended up indented too far. Read the value first. Signed-off-by: Miodrag Obradovic <mck097@gmail.com> Assisted-by: a closed-source coding agent
|
Welcome to Node.js, and thank you for your first contribution! Before review, please take a moment to read:
Please make sure every commit is signed off. For a first pull request, GitHub Actions require collaborator approval and Jenkins CI must be started by a collaborator or triager, so an initial wait is normal. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #66421 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.37% 90.37%
=======================================
Files 792 792
Lines 275683 275686 +3
Branches 52854 52854
=======================================
+ Hits 249147 249159 +12
+ Misses 16947 16935 -12
- Partials 9589 9592 +3
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Only failing in smartos, and with different flaky tests: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/78126/ https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/78131/ |
util.inspect()of aDataViewwhose buffer was detached comes out indented too far, and so does everything after it in the same output:The cause was
formatExtraProperties(): it raisedctx.indentationLvlbefore readingvalue[key]. On a detachedDataViewthebyteLengthandbyteOffsetgetters throw, so the-= 2never runs and 2 spaces leak per key, 4 in total.The bug came in with #60131, and the test added there asserted the leaked output.
Fix: read the value before indenting.
I built Node on Windows and tested it: the changed test fails without the fix and passes with it, as do 428 related tests.
I used Claude Code to find the bug and write the fix. I reviewed the diff and the changed assertion myself.
Refs: #60131