the version 1.0.22 do not search from the basePort

[fubai]

the version 1.0.22 do not search from the basePort

[BarthesSimpson]

It does, but instead of starting at basePort p and checking p, p+1, p+2... stopPort in order, it now checks a random sequence of ports in the range basePort...stopPort. This change was to fix an issue where calling getPort more than once in quick succession could lead to the same port being returned multiple times if the client had not finished binding by the time the second call ran its check (#79).

[bcfurtado]

Hi, this seems to be is a breaking change then. Previously, the expected behavior was that the basePort would be used as the initial default value.
Packages such as vue-cli and [webpack-dev] were relying on the old behavior.

$ npm list | grep portfinder
│ ├─┬ [email protected]
│ │ ├── [email protected] deduped

$ node --experimental-repl-await
> const portfinder = require('portfinder')
undefined
> portfinder.basePort
8000
> let port = await portfinder.getPortPromise()
undefined
> port
10211

$ npm list | grep portfinder
│ ├── [email protected] deduped
│ │ ├── [email protected] deduped
├─┬ [email protected]

$ node --experimental-repl-await
> const portfinder = require('portfinder')
undefined
> portfinder.basePort
8000
> let port = await portfinder.getPortPromise()
undefined
> port
8000

[jaredjj3]

It does, but instead of starting at basePort p and checking p, p+1, p+2... stopPort in order, it now checks a random sequence of ports in the range basePort...stopPort. This change was to fix an issue where calling getPort more than once in quick succession could lead to the same port being returned multiple times if the client had not finished binding by the time the second call ran its check (#79).

The change made does not solve the problem, since multiple calls of getPort can still return the same port. This "port collision" event is more probable as the range basePort...stopPort decreases to 1.

I recommend reverting this change or making it optional. The caller will then be responsible for port reservation.

[AndreasCag]

I recently configured webpack and was really frustrated with that behaviour.

As for me, I would like to have my app on a certain port most of the time, and if it is busy, then choose next port in a sequential order. It is easy to remember and convenient behaviour.

[ThibaultVlacich]

It does, but instead of starting at basePort p and checking p, p+1, p+2... stopPort in order, it now checks a random sequence of ports in the range basePort...stopPort. This change was to fix an issue where calling getPort more than once in quick succession could lead to the same port being returned multiple times if the client had not finished binding by the time the second call ran its check (#79).

This absolutely makes no sense.

1/ There's no bug in the first place. If an application "call[s] getPort more than once in quick succession" there's a problem with the logic, as you should wait for a call to have returned a port, assign it, and then make an other call.
2/ Even if, it doesn't "fix" the issue, it just makes the probably of it happening very thin.

And seriously, releasing a breaking change like that as a "patch"...

[BarthesSimpson]

1/ There's no bug in the first place. If an application "call[s] getPort more than once in quick succession" there's a problem with the logic, as you should wait for a call to have returned a port, assign it, and then make an other call.

It's not about waiting for the port to return - it's that whatever is binding to the returned port (e.g. a server) can take some time to bind even after the port is returned.

2/ Even if, it doesn't "fix" the issue, it just makes the probably of it happening very thin.

That's correct. It means any application that is binding and releasing a large number of ports dynamically can rely on a simple error handler in the downstream logic (i.e. if the attempt to bind encounters an EADDRINUSE, retry) which will be invoked roughly once every 32,000 calls rather than having to block on each binding attempt until successful binding is verified.

It seems like a lot of consumers are relying on the sequential scan though, and there is a PR out that reverts to making that the default behavior: #86

[ctstewart]

I use Vue Cli, and this completely broke devServer.port in vue.config.js. I ended up reverting to 1.0.21 of portfinder for now.

[lltx]

Very bad

[Qaick]

Also vuejs/vue-cli#4452

[pimterry]

This has created bugs in my application too - I'm specifically depending on finding the first available port in the range, not a random port.

[eriktrom]

I will roll back immediately

[eriktrom]

Reverted v1.0.22 - v1.0.23 is the same as v1.0.21 now