doc: improve util.promisify() content in readline.md #42552
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Mesteery
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2022
bnb
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2022
aduh95
requested changes
Apr 1, 2022
I don't think we want to recommend using util.promisify over the "built-in" promisified alternative.
doc/api/readline.md
Outdated
| Use [`util.promisify()`][] to create a version that returns a | ||
| promise that fulfills with the answer. If the question is canceled using | ||
| an `AbortController` it will reject with an `AbortError`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Use [`util.promisify()`][] to create a version that returns a | |
| promise that fulfills with the answer. If the question is canceled using | |
| an `AbortController` it will reject with an `AbortError`. | |
| Don't use [`util.promisify()`][] to create a version that returns a | |
| promise that fulfills with the answer, use `require('readline/promises').createInterface` instead. If the question is canceled using | |
| an `AbortController` it will reject with an `AbortError`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can also recommend AbortSignal.timeout()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since there's a documented promise API, I think we can just delete all the text, or replace it with something like "See [other API][] for a promise-based version of this API."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, removing it could make sense indeed. Worth noting that promise API is still marked as experimental and not available on Node.js <17, so we could expect a large chunk of our users would prefer to rely on util.promisify. Folks who want to support older release lines should check the documentation of the older release line.
|
Content removed entirely. Does that work well enough, @aduh95? |
aduh95
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2022
|
Landed in 059b890 |
juanarbol
added a commit
to juanarbol/node
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2022
PR-URL: nodejs#42552 Reviewed-By: Mestery <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tierney Cyren <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Closed
Merged
juanarbol
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 6, 2022
PR-URL: #42552 Reviewed-By: Mestery <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tierney Cyren <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
No description provided.