Repository navigation
Inconsistent behavior between util.formatWithOptions and util.inspect #29726
Description
- Version: v12.11.0
- Platform: Linux tiagonapoli-Inspiron-7460 5.0.0-29-generic Updates README with IRC channel for #io.js #31-Ubuntu SMP Thu Sep 12 13:05:32 UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The following snippet shows a possible unexpected output for formatWithOptions. On console.log(util.formatWithOptions({ }, '%s', obj)) I expected a output { a: [ '123' ] }, but got { a: [Array] } :
const util = require('util')
const obj = { a: ['123'] }
/************ formatWithOptions ************/
// { a: [Array] }
console.log(util.formatWithOptions({ }, '%s', obj))
// { a: [ '123' ] } - Note: this is not respecting the api docs, the first argument has to be an object
console.log(util.formatWithOptions('%s', obj))
/******************************************/
/************ inspect ************/
// { a: [ '123' ] }
console.log(util.inspect(obj, { }))
// { a: [ '123' ] }
console.log(util.inspect(obj))
/*******************************/Since util.formatWithOptions('%s', obj) doesn't respect the api docs, maybe this is an expected behavior for util.formatWithOptions, in this case maybe it could be changed to have similar behavior to inspect?
Activity
[-]Unexpected output with util.formatWithOptions[/-][+]Inconsistent behavior between util.formatWithOptions and util.inspect[/+]tiagonapoli commentedon Sep 26, 2019
Saw that the following code specifies that the depth for
%sis garanteed to be 0, overriding the giveninspectOptions, is this the behavior intended?node/lib/internal/util/inspect.js
Lines 1611 to 1616 in 1fa4037
BridgeAR commentedon Sep 26, 2019
@tiagonapoli yes, that is intentional. The reason is that inspecting objects with
%swas until recently not inspected at all butString(obj)was used and that would result in e.g.[object Object]for input like{ a: true }.If you want to pass through objects, please use the
%Oformatter. That way the depth is handled as withutil.inspect().BridgeAR commentedon Sep 26, 2019
And
util.formatWithOptions('%s', obj)should actually throw an error. You pass through'%s'as options.util: validate formatWithOptions inspectOptions
util: validate formatWithOptions inspectOptions