node inspect hides inspect.js script without warning #64111

Activity

1. DSAntonio08 commented on Jul 1, 2026

   

   DSAntonio08

   on Jul 1, 2026

   More actions

   Hi! I'd be interested in working on this, but before I start — the issue mentions two possible fixes (hard error vs. warning). Given the linked discussions around node run/node inspect being reserved subcommands, is there already a preferred direction from the maintainers, or is this still open for either approach?
2. bitpshr commented on Jul 12, 2026

   

   bitpshr

   on Jul 12, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   Opened #64448 for this. I went with a warning rather than a hard error, since erroring would break running the debugger from a directory that just happens to contain an inspect.js. Happy to switch it to an error if that's the preferred direction.
3. aduh95 commented on Jul 12, 2026

   

   aduh95

   on Jul 12, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   I really don't think it's worth fixing, there are many other "shadowing" happening (e.g. if you have a file and a directory with the same name, the file shadows the directory and you don't hear anyone complaining about it). It's like a quirk, sure it can be surprising but we don't recommend not providing the file extension, omitting it is asking for trouble

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Paul Bouchon
4. aduh95

   closed this as not plannedon Jul 12, 2026
5. vassudanagunta commented on Jul 13, 2026

   

   vassudanagunta

   on Jul 13, 2026

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   @aduh95

   The issue of shadowing is the primary thing holding up the introduction of additional subcommands beyond node inspect. Please see @tniessen's comment at the first link I provided. I am on the verge of publishing a proposal for subcommands that I hope will answer his call: "If someone is inevitably going to add subcommands to Node.js, we should at least have a policy for that, and a strategy that goes beyond a single subcommand."

   In fact, I submitted this issue as a part of my R&D for the proposal, which includes a number of possible solutions to smoothly if not elegantly address this issue, the anti-pattern of which @tniessen's speaks.

   Would you please consider reopening this issue at least for a couple of weeks, as I think it should be part of the discussion I hope occurs about subcommands?
6. aduh95 commented on Jul 13, 2026

   

   aduh95

   on Jul 13, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   Shadowing local files would still be a reality whether we issue a warning or not, so introducing subcommands would not be less breaking if that issue stays open

   which includes a number of possible solutions to smoothly if not elegantly address this issue

   I’d be curious to see those solutions, we should probably start with those instead