Skip to content

feat: add process exit handler #1212

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
BioPhoton wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat: add process exit handler #1212

BioPhoton wants to merge 1 commit into from
+152 −0

Conversation

@BioPhoton
Copy link
Collaborator

@BioPhoton BioPhoton commented Jan 12, 2026 •
edited
Loading

related to #1197

@BioPhoton BioPhoton mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2026
Open
@nx-cloud
Copy link

nx-cloud bot commented Jan 12, 2026 •
edited
Loading

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 586a93f

Command Status Duration Result
nx affected -t e2e-test --parallel=1 ✅ Succeeded 12m 22s View ↗

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2026-01-12 02:18:14 UTC

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Open in StackBlitz

@code-pushup/ci

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/ci@1212

@code-pushup/cli

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/cli@1212

@code-pushup/core

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/core@1212

@code-pushup/create-cli

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/create-cli@1212

@code-pushup/models

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/models@1212

@code-pushup/nx-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/nx-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/axe-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/axe-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/coverage-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/coverage-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/eslint-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/eslint-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/js-packages-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/js-packages-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/jsdocs-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/jsdocs-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/lighthouse-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/lighthouse-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/typescript-plugin

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/typescript-plugin@1212

@code-pushup/utils

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/code-pushup/cli/@code-pushup/utils@1212

commit: 586a93f

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Code PushUp

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit 72be53f with previous commit 7d3681c.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Categories

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Performance 🔴 37 🔴 36 ↓ −1.3
Documentation 🔴 34 🔴 34 ↓ −0.1
Code coverage 🟢 91 🟢 91 ↑ +0.1
Bug prevention 🟡 75 🟡 75 ↓ −0.1
Axe Accessibility 🟡 88 🟡 88 ↓ −0.1
Code style 🟢 99 🟢 99 –
Security 🟡 51 🟡 51 –
Updates 🟡 78 🟡 78 –
Type Safety 🟡 67 🟡 67 –
Miscellaneous 🟡 67 🟡 67 –
Accessibility 🟢 92 🟢 92 –
Best Practices 🟢 100 🟢 100 –
SEO 🟢 92 🟢 92 –
👍 1 group improved, 👎 2 groups regressed, 👍 2 audits improved, 👎 7 audits regressed, 14 audits changed without impacting score

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Lighthouse Performance 🔴 37 🔴 36 ↓ −1.3
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🔴 34 🔴 34 ↓ −0.1
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 91 🟢 91 ↑ +0.1

31 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
Lighthouse Speed Index 🟥 5.9 s 🟥 6.5 s ↑ +11.4 %
Lighthouse First Contentful Paint 🟥 3.0 s 🟥 3.1 s ↑ +2.4 %
Lighthouse Time to Interactive 🟥 13.0 s 🟥 13.6 s ↑ +4.1 %
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟥 260 undocumented types 🟥 262 undocumented types ↑ +0.8 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟨 86.2 % 🟨 86.2 % ↑ +0.1 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 597 undocumented functions 🟥 598 undocumented functions ↑ +0.2 %
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 271 undocumented variables 🟥 272 undocumented variables ↑ +0.4 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 93.4 % 🟩 93.4 % ↑ +0.1 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟨 87.3 % 🟨 87.3 % ↓ −0.1 %
Lighthouse Avoids enormous network payloads 🟩 Total size was 2,113 KiB 🟩 Total size was 2,108 KiB ↓ −0.2 %
Lighthouse Server Backend Latencies 🟩 1,050 ms 🟩 220 ms ↓ −78.8 %
Lighthouse Metrics 🟩 100% 🟩 100% ↑ +4.1 %
Lighthouse Reduce unused CSS 🟥 Potential savings of 95 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 95 KiB ↓ −50 %
Lighthouse Uses efficient cache policy on static assets 🟨 31 resources found 🟨 31 resources found ↓ −0.1 %
Lighthouse Max Potential First Input Delay 🟥 1,040 ms 🟥 890 ms ↓ −14.4 %
Lighthouse Reduce unused JavaScript 🟥 Potential savings of 200 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 222 KiB ↓ −14.2 %
Lighthouse Remove duplicate modules in JavaScript bundles 🟥 Potential savings of 103 KiB 🟥 Potential savings of 104 KiB ↓ −33.3 %
Lighthouse Largest Contentful Paint 🟥 11.4 s 🟥 11.3 s ↓ −1 %
Lighthouse JavaScript execution time 🟥 4.4 s 🟥 4.3 s ↓ −2.3 %
Lighthouse Initial server response time was short 🟩 Root document took 400 ms 🟩 Root document took 440 ms ↑ +10.5 %
Lighthouse Minimizes main-thread work 🟥 8.9 s 🟥 8.9 s ↓ −0.2 %
Lighthouse Network Round Trip Times 🟩 0 ms 🟩 20 ms ↑ +257.8 %
Lighthouse Total Blocking Time 🟥 1,990 ms 🟥 1,990 ms ↓ −0.2 %

656 other audits are unchanged.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Code PushUp

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit 72be53f with previous commit 7d3681c.

💼 Project utils

🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions.

🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍

🏷️ Category ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
Documentation 🔴 36 🔴 36 ↓ −0.1
Code coverage 🟢 94 🟢 94 ↑ +0.1

4 other categories are unchanged.

👍 1 group improved, 👎 1 group regressed, 👍 2 audits improved, 👎 4 audits regressed

🗃️ Groups

🔌 Plugin 🗃️ Group ⭐ Previous score ⭐ Current score 🔄 Score change
JSDocs coverage Documentation coverage 🔴 36 🔴 36 ↓ −0.1
Code coverage Code coverage metrics 🟢 94 🟢 94 ↑ +0.1

13 other groups are unchanged.

🛡️ Audits

🔌 Plugin 🛡️ Audit 📏 Previous value 📏 Current value 🔄 Value change
JSDocs coverage Types coverage 🟥 59 undocumented types 🟥 61 undocumented types ↑ +3.4 %
JSDocs coverage Variables coverage 🟥 43 undocumented variables 🟥 44 undocumented variables ↑ +2.3 %
Code coverage Line coverage 🟩 93.8 % 🟩 93.9 % ↑ +0.1 %
Code coverage Branch coverage 🟩 91.8 % 🟩 91.8 % ↓ −0.1 %
JSDocs coverage Functions coverage 🟥 246 undocumented functions 🟥 247 undocumented functions ↑ +0.4 %
Code coverage Function coverage 🟩 95.8 % 🟩 95.9 % ↑ +0.1 %

438 other audits are unchanged.

13 other projects are unchanged.

@BioPhoton BioPhoton marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2026 02:05
@BioPhoton BioPhoton requested a review from hanna-skryl January 12, 2026 02:22
hanna-skryl
hanna-skryl reviewed Jan 12, 2026
View reviewed changes
packages/utils/src/lib/exit-process.ts
Comment on lines +4 to +8
const SIGNALS = [
['SIGINT', 130],
['SIGTERM', 143],
['SIGQUIT', 131],
] as const;
Copy link
Collaborator

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl Jan 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The array defines exit codes but only the signal names are referenced. Are these planned for future use? Also, logger.ts already defines similar signal constants - might be worth extracting and reusing.

packages/utils/src/lib/exit-process.ts
Comment on lines +32 to +42
// Graceful shutdown signals
SIGNALS.forEach(([signal]) => {
process.on(signal, () => {
options.onClose?.();
});
});

// Normal exit
process.on('exit', () => {
options.onClose?.();
});
Copy link
Collaborator

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl Jan 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If a signal is received, onClose is called. Then when the process exits, the 'exit' event also triggers onClose. Should there be a guard to prevent duplicate calls?

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

Reviewers

@hanna-skryl hanna-skryl hanna-skryl left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@BioPhoton BioPhoton

Labels

🔬 testing writing tests 🧩 utils

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@BioPhoton @hanna-skryl