src: set default config as node.config.json

[marco-ippolito]

This PR changes the current behavior:

node --experimental-default-config-file foo.js

Will automatically look for a node.config.json file (I dont have strong opinion on the default)

If a --experimental-config-file is provided it will use that:

node --experimental-config-file=foo.json foo.js

[jasnell]

Hmm, I'm a bit concerned about naming collisions with existing uses of node.json such as this https://github.com/kubeedge/kubeedge/blob/master/build/node.json.

[marco-ippolito]

Maybe noderc.json? That should not have collisions (I HOPE 😆)

[targos]

In any case, I don't think it should be unflagged from the first release.

[marco-ippolito]

In any case, I don't think it should be unflagged from the first release.

it's not unflagged, I'm not sure what are you referring to

[targos]

Okay then, I guess I didn't read the commit message correctly

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.33333% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.27%. Comparing base (044d69a) to head (3e6cfd1).
Report is 24 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/node_config_file.cc	63.63%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #57171      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.35%   90.27%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         629      630       +1     
  Lines      184424   184643     +219     
  Branches    36034    36138     +104     
==========================================
+ Hits       166633   166691      +58     
- Misses      10913    11011      +98     
- Partials     6878     6941      +63     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/process/pre_execution.js	93.03% <100.00%> (-0.28%)	⬇️
src/node_options.cc	85.21% <100.00%> (-0.11%)	⬇️
src/node_options.h	98.33% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/node_config_file.cc	73.18% <63.63%> (+1.21%)	⬆️

... and 40 files with indirect coverage changes

[jasnell]

When searching I was only able to find examples of node.json in common use. Even nodejs.json might work (despite the ugly double js in there). Or .node.json (making it a dot prefixed file). The other possibility is that we look for a .nodejs directory in cwd and load .nodejs/config.json. Every option is likely equally unfortunate in their own special ways tho.

[marco-ippolito]

Best options are
.node.json or
noderc.json imho, I'll try a survey on social media so see what people think

[anonrig]

How does this play with file permissions?

[marco-ippolito]

How does this play with file permissions?

I added a test, also will need a rebase after #57170 lands.

There are 6k results for node.json on github:
https://github.com/search?q=path:**/node.json+language:JSON&type=code&l=JSON

I wish we could just take it 🥺

Otherwise:

• node.config.json

• nodejs.json

[darcyrush]

Modern versions of eslint and prettier both support a version of .config naming notion such as eslint.config.cjs, so node.config.json would align nicely, and having .config in the name makes it pretty obvious and explicit.

[bricss]

IMO, node.config.json to de moon 🚀🌔

[marco-ippolito]

node.config.json it is

[GeoffreyBooth]

When the day comes that we load node.config.json without needing any flags, I assume we’ll need a way to disable that behavior and not just as a temporary “while still experimental” measure, because I assume that some people will consider it a security hazard that we might load configuration implicitly. (Though we already do so via NODE_OPTIONS, I guess, so if you think I’m wrong about this assumption I’m very open to be persuaded that I’m wrong.) So when this feature is stable and if we do need a permanent way to prevent the automatic loading, I think the options are either --no-default-config-file or --disable-default-config-file. We have a bunch of --no-* flags and also a bunch of --disable-* flags, and I’m not sure if there’s any reasoning behind one versus the other.

Personally I think disable makes more sense for this particular feature from an English language perspective of “disable the loading of the default config file”, as opposed to “no default config file” being a bit ambiguous (am I telling it not to load a default config file, or that Node should error if there is no default config file, or something else?). But I defer to the crowd on this one.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/65441/