Proposal: move node-report into core

[cjihrig]

The idea of moving node-report was brought up at the Diagnostics Summit.

Thoughts? Objections?

[dshaw]

Also: https://github.com/nodejs/node-report

[gireeshpunathil]

+1.
By moving this into core, will the report generation hooks be enabled by default?

[targos]

+1

[mmarchini]

+1

[jasnell]

+1

[richardlau]

Some previous discussion in nodejs/node-report#103.

[Fishrock123]

I'd be ok with this but it will need to modifications to default behavior and also perhaps other things.

Also, the api would have to be not exposed as a separate module. I propose we do not attempt to expose the JS api until the other parts are implemented.

[jasnell]

I agree with not exposing the js API as a separate module. A function off util or console should work fine. There are definitely a few internal bits that will need to be looked at also.

[devsnek]

+1

[hiroppy]

+1

[joyeecheung]

@gireeshpunathil

By moving this into core, will the report generation hooks be enabled by default?

I think what we have talked about at the summit was, first putting triggerReport() in util and making it a semver-minor change, the whole thing will be experimental. Then we iterate on that and discuss whether to enable it by default, where it should log to and how to specify that, .etc

[joyeecheung]

One thing we need to discuss: how is the test CI integration of node-report going to work? Right now it does not have a testing CI I believe. During the summit we talked about vendoring it in like node-inspect, so it would be great if it has separate testing CIs for PRs of its own.

cc @richardlau @rnchamberlain @hhellyer

[rnchamberlain]

@joyeecheung there is a CI here: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/post-mortem/job/nodereport-continuous-integration/

[richardlau]

In addition to the CI for testing node-report itself it is also included in CITGM runs.

[hashseed]

+1