fix: allow concurrent non-local npx calls #8512
Open
+1,033
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If you kick off multiple npx processes at the same time for the same non-local package(s), they can potentially install atop each other in the same npx cache directory. This can cause one or both processes to fail silently, or with various errors (e.g.
TAR_ENTRY_ERROR,ENOTEMPTY,EJSONPARSE,MODULE_NOT_FOUND), depending on when/where something gets clobbered. See this issue for more context and previous discussion.This pull request introduces a lock around reading and reifying the tree in the npx cache directory, so that concurrent npx executions for the same non-local package(s) can succeed. The lock mechanism is based on
mkdirs atomicity and implemented via proper-lockfile. proper-lockfile is battle tested and relatively lightweight (it just adds another version of signal-exit to the tree), but if desired I could update the PR to use a slightly simpler inline implementation.References
Fixes #8224