child_process.spawn ignores PATHEXT on Windows

[timdp]

Originally reported as nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#2318.

TLDR: The workaround is to use cross-spawn (or cross-spawn-async).

[cjihrig]

Does the shell option to spawn() do what you need?

[timdp]

@cjihrig I'm guessing it would work, but wouldn't native support for PATHEXT be better? Otherwise, you could also claim that we'd always need to specify the .exe suffix on Windows, since otherwise, the first argument wouldn't be the exact name of the executable either.

[cjihrig]

I'm not a Windows user, so forgive me if I'm wrong. Isn't PATHEXT an environment variable used by cmd.exe? I wouldn't expect it to supported unless you're running the command in a shell.

[timdp]

On Windows, everything has an extension, but you can use child_process.spawn to spawn foo.exe by just passing in 'foo'. However, bar.cmd or baz.com can only be spawned by specifying the full filename. Since .exe is part of PATHEXT, I just assumed that it was more of a system-wide thing and expected Node to support it just like PATH itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[cjihrig]

It looks like libuv does this when looking up the file, so I'd expect 'foo', 'foo.com', and 'foo.exe' to all work (although judging from your comment, .com doesn't). It looks like CreateProcess() only handles .com and .exe, and anything else would require a shell.

[sam-github]

.com, .exe, and .bat, anything else (such as .cmd) requires a shell

^--- my understanding

[timdp]

My bad, .com probably works then.

But if .cmd requires a shell, does that mean a bash script would behave the same way on *NIX? Given that a lot of apps install themselves as bash-based wrappers, that'd probably cause a lot of breakage.

But ultimately, I guess this is a libuv issue then?

[bnoordhuis]

But if .cmd requires a shell, does that mean a bash script would behave the same way on *NIX?

Yes, but UNIX kernels support shebangs; on Windows, that's handled by cmd.exe.

Rule of thumb: pass { shell: true } if you don't know what kind of program you're executing.

[timdp]

How about a {shell: 'auto'} that looks at the extension on Windows? You know it's bound to end up in an npm module anyway.

[bnoordhuis]

My question would be 'why'?

[timdp]

Because you don't want to spawn a shell if you don't have to. Forking Spawning is expensive.

[bnoordhuis]

Performance claims should be backed up by numbers, else they're just assertions.

Aside: there is no concept of forking in the Windows process model.