Conversation
463ef95 to
f1438c4
Compare
|
Rebased |
|
Since the WASM did not change I don't think any of the failures are related to this PR. This issue seems to say there is a lot of flakiness and probably confirms that - #3787 |
| @@ -1,13 +1,14 @@ | |||
| 'use strict' | |||
|
|
|||
| const WASM_BUILDER_CONTAINER = 'ghcr.io/nodejs/wasm-builder@sha256:975f391d907e42a75b8c72eb77c782181e941608687d4d8694c3e9df415a0970' // v0.0.9 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there plans to provide regular updates to it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have been thinking a bit about that, I think we want to update regularly but not necessarily too often. At least a month before every new Node.js major but I could see more often making sense as well.
The repo where it is maintained has release please and all of the automation to generate a new vesion so it's as simple as a PR to update the dockerfile used to build the container and once that lands the rest is pretty much automated.
@metcoder95 how often do you think an update would make sense ? How often was undici updating?
This relates to...
See discussion in #3714
Note that with the updated common/container the same WASM seems to be generated so there should be
no functional changes.
The container itself is build using an approach that was based off of what undici was doing.
Rationale
#3714 includes the rational and discussion agreeing that I should submit a PR.
Changes
Updates the build process to use the Node.js common wasm-builder container.
Features
Bug Fixes
Breaking Changes and Deprecations
Status