This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 30, 2020. It is now read-only.
Throw for uninstantiated dynamic module access #4
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an alternative to #3, where instead of altering execution to ensure that checking export names on dynamic modules isn't possible before they have been instantiated, we always throw in this scenario.
To recap, the problem case as in #3 is:
a.mjs
b.mjs
Where
dynamicis a dynamic module and if importinga.mjsfirst, we will find thatb.mjsis executed beforedynamicis executed, so that we will be logging the namespace exports of the dynamic module before it is executed.The approach taken in this PR is using the fact that instantiate order exactly matches execution order, such that we can catch this problem during instantiation.
The check is that
GetExportedNamesis called on the dynamic module before it has instantiated, so we can do a null return here to indicate an error to then throw in the Runtime Semantics of GetModuleNamespace.In addition, this fixes the fact that this was previously a bug in the instantiation process as well.
This comprehensively defends against invalid access to the dynamic module, so I would like to merge this soon and close out #3.
Would value help on the review of the approach, and if this works ok in the spec format. The completion handling may need a second look.
//cc @bmeck @caridy