Make execa compatible with Node.js 13.0.0-pre

[Trott]

Use error.code instead of error.errno when expecting a string error
code. errno is always numeric in Node.js 13.0.0-pre.

Node.js 13.0.0 comes out later this month (October 2019) so implementing
and publishing this change will hopefully smooth the upgrade path for
execa users.

[ehmicky]

Thanks for this heads up @Trott! This looks good to me. @sindresorhus what do you think?

[sindresorhus]

Should we also update the readme? We're showing errno: 'ENOENT', in a couple of examples.

[ehmicky]

Yes you're right, it's shown in two instances in the readme, @Trott could you please update the PR with this?

Also @Trott will os.constants.errno still be available? We're using this as well.

[Trott]

Yes you're right, it's shown in two instances in the readme, @Trott could you please update the PR with this?

👍 I updated the readme in a separate commit and pushed it to this branch.

Also @Trott will os.constants.errno still be available? We're using this as well.

Yes, that should still be available:

$ node-pre -e 'console.log(process.versions.node, os.constants.errno)'
13.0.0-pre [Object: null prototype] {
  E2BIG: 7,
  EACCES: 13,
  EADDRINUSE: 48,
  EADDRNOTAVAIL: 49,
  EAFNOSUPPORT: 47,
  EAGAIN: 35,
  EALREADY: 37,
  EBADF: 9,
  EBADMSG: 94,
  EBUSY: 16,
  ECANCELED: 89,
  ECHILD: 10,
  ECONNABORTED: 53,
  ECONNREFUSED: 61,
  ECONNRESET: 54,
  EDEADLK: 11,
  EDESTADDRREQ: 39,
  EDOM: 33,
  EDQUOT: 69,
  EEXIST: 17,
  EFAULT: 14,
  EFBIG: 27,
  EHOSTUNREACH: 65,
  EIDRM: 90,
  EILSEQ: 92,
  EINPROGRESS: 36,
  EINTR: 4,
  EINVAL: 22,
  EIO: 5,
  EISCONN: 56,
  EISDIR: 21,
  ELOOP: 62,
  EMFILE: 24,
  EMLINK: 31,
  EMSGSIZE: 40,
  EMULTIHOP: 95,
  ENAMETOOLONG: 63,
  ENETDOWN: 50,
  ENETRESET: 52,
  ENETUNREACH: 51,
  ENFILE: 23,
  ENOBUFS: 55,
  ENODATA: 96,
  ENODEV: 19,
  ENOENT: 2,
  ENOEXEC: 8,
  ENOLCK: 77,
  ENOLINK: 97,
  ENOMEM: 12,
  ENOMSG: 91,
  ENOPROTOOPT: 42,
  ENOSPC: 28,
  ENOSR: 98,
  ENOSTR: 99,
  ENOSYS: 78,
  ENOTCONN: 57,
  ENOTDIR: 20,
  ENOTEMPTY: 66,
  ENOTSOCK: 38,
  ENOTSUP: 45,
  ENOTTY: 25,
  ENXIO: 6,
  EOPNOTSUPP: 102,
  EOVERFLOW: 84,
  EPERM: 1,
  EPIPE: 32,
  EPROTO: 100,
  EPROTONOSUPPORT: 43,
  EPROTOTYPE: 41,
  ERANGE: 34,
  EROFS: 30,
  ESPIPE: 29,
  ESRCH: 3,
  ESTALE: 70,
  ETIME: 101,
  ETIMEDOUT: 60,
  ETXTBSY: 26,
  EWOULDBLOCK: 35,
  EXDEV: 18
}
$

[Trott]

By the way, if you want to do more testing yourself here or on some other project but don't want to be bothered compiling Node.js 13.0.0-pre yourself, you can download the current release candidate (which actually isn't a release candidate at all but rather more of a beta, but that's a rant for another day) from https://nodejs.org/download/rc/v13.0.0-rc.1/.

[ehmicky]

Thanks @Trott! This looks good to me. What do you think @sindresorhus?

[Trott]

@sindresorhus @ehmicky Thanks for merging quickly. Can we get a new release published so that people testing with the Node.js v13.0.0-rc.1 don't hit this issue?

[sindresorhus]

https://github.com/sindresorhus/execa/releases/tag/v2.0.5