>=1.6.2 break require('.') with NODE_PATH

[a8m]

Running iojs until >=v.1.6.1 allow to use require('.')(i.e: index.js) with NODE_PATH.
Using >=v1.6.2 throw an error.

Example:

$ NODE_PATH=src node

// Start repl

> require('.')
Error: Cannot find module '.'
...
...

Could anyone please confirm this regression, so I could work on a fix.
Thx

[a0viedo]

I can't reproduce this in v1.6.3 nor v1.6.2. With v1.6.1 and v1.6.0 it throws the error Cannot find module '.'

[Fishrock123]

@a8m Are you trying to load a file whose whole name is .?

as of v1.6.2 require('.') works the same as require('./').
6fc5e95

[a8m]

@a8m Are you trying to load a file whose whole name is .?

No, require('.') means require('index'), i.e: directory.

note that it's throw an error only when running node with NODE_PATH, and it works fine in <=1.6.1.
(please see the example above)

[Fishrock123]

note that it's throw an error only when running node with NODE_PATH, and it works fine in <=1.6.1.
(please see the example above)

It should not work before io.js 1.6.2 because the commit which added the functionality is only in 1.6.2+ -- 6fc5e95

[a8m]

Can you please run the example above @Fishrock123 ? (it also works on node 0.10)

[rlidwka]

No, require('.') means require('index') as I know.

require('.') means "require current directory". Same as require('./').

Works for me as expected:

$ cat > index.js
module.exports=1337
$ NODE_PATH=whatever iojs 
> require('.')
1337

[silverwind]

Well it looks like this was another undocumented feature, but it is a regression. Before the change one could do NODE_PATH=module iojs -p "require('.')" and get the equivalent of require('./module').

[a8m]

On which version are you testing it ? @rlidwka

[silverwind]

This 'feature' looks to be broken by simply setting more than one path in NODE_PATH:

On 1.6.1 (with both module1 and module2 being folders in the current dir):

$ export NODE_PATH=module1,module2
$ iojs -p 'require(".")'
module.js:318
    throw err;
          ^
Error: Cannot find module '.'

Not sure if it's worth to fix, considering it is undocumented and won't work with more than one module dir specified.

[Fishrock123]

@a8m what is the use-case for the previous behavior?

[silverwind]

I'm leaning towards that the current behaviour logically more correct, and would consider the old behavior as a bug, because you'd expect that require('.') would get you the module in $PWD and not the module in the first (and only) path in $NODE_PATH.

Also, $NODE_PATH seems not to be intended to actually contain a module in its root, but subdirectories with modules.