镜像站点 · 本页由第三方 GitHub 只读镜像提供,非 GitHub 官方站点,不接受任何登录或凭据输入。前往 github.com
Skip to content

lib: add --allow-fs-vfs to permission available flags - #66554

Open
RafaelGSS wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
RafaelGSS:add-allow-fs-vfs-to-permission-available-flags
Open

RafaelGSS wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
RafaelGSS:add-allow-fs-vfs-to-permission-available-flags

Conversation

@RafaelGSS

@RafaelGSS RafaelGSS commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

PTAL @mcollina

This is a "breaking change", but it's a bug fix and considering --allow-fs-vfs is experimental, I wouldn't consider it as semver-major.

Without it, --allow-fs-vfs was accepted without --permission and was not
propagated to child processes like the other --allow-* flags.

Signed-off-by: RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com>
@nodejs-github-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/security-wg

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. permission Issues and PRs related to the Permission Model. labels Oct 6, 2026
@RafaelGSS
RafaelGSS requested a review from mcollina October 6, 2026 09:38
@RafaelGSS
RafaelGSS marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2026 09:38
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.41%. Comparing base (fcfb7ec) to head (77f7331).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #66554   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.40%   90.41%           
=======================================
  Files         791      791           
  Lines      276226   276227    +1     
  Branches    53045    53036    -9     
=======================================
+ Hits       249732   249742   +10     
  Misses      16899    16899           
+ Partials     9595     9586    -9     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/internal/process/permission.js 92.55% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️

... and 31 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@mcollina mcollina added dont-land-on-v22.x PRs that should not land on the v22.x-staging branch and should not be released in v22.x. dont-land-on-v24.x PRs that should not land on the v24.x-staging branch and should not be released in v24.x. labels Oct 6, 2026
@mcollina

mcollina commented Oct 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yes, adding the "dont land on 22.x and 24.x" labels

@RafaelGSS RafaelGSS added author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. Only starts once the PR has an approving review. labels Oct 6, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. Only starts once the PR has an approving review. label Oct 6, 2026
@nodejs-github-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. dont-land-on-v22.x PRs that should not land on the v22.x-staging branch and should not be released in v22.x. dont-land-on-v24.x PRs that should not land on the v24.x-staging branch and should not be released in v24.x. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. permission Issues and PRs related to the Permission Model.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants