You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
vm.Script's importModuleDynamically should get a reference to the context used to run it #35714
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When implementing importModuleDynamically you don't have access to what context the script is executed with, meaning you can't pass the correct context when constructing a Module. We're also missing the filename of the Script, so resolving to the specifier passed is also not straightforward since it can be changed by .runIn*Context() calls from what I passed in to the constructor.
Describe the solution you'd like
I think adding context and filename as accessible properties on the Script instance passed to the function should work fine - it would mirror what you get when using SourceTextModule where I have access to context and identifier. It could also be passed as a third argument to the function passed in importModuleDynamically if you don't wanna change the Script instance itself.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The implementation I've gone with in the absence of such an API is to get the context again and re-use the filename passed in the constructor. This works since I also have control over how the script is executed, but that might not always be the case. Mirroring the capability of SourceTextModule would be nice, though - where in the context of the callback in importModuleDynamically there's enough information to know how to resolve the specifier being requested and in what context it should run.
That would mean the passed in Script must be different from the outer one, right? E.g. this works fine today
constassert=require('assert');constvm=require('vm');constouterScript=newvm.Script('import("woo").then(console.log)',{asyncimportModuleDynamically(_,innerScript){assert.ok(outerScript===innerScript);// the below is just to please the API in returning a module, not relevant to the point I'm makingconstmodule=newvm.SyntheticModule(['default'],function(){this.setExport('default','hello!');});awaitmodule.link(()=>{thrownewError('Linker should not be called');});awaitmodule.evaluate();returnmodule;},});outerScript.runInThisContext();
If innerScript were to have e.g. filename on it, that would necessarily have to be different from outerScript, I believe. Since I can run the script many times in different contexts before it completes its execution. Dunno if there's a use case for them being the same instance, tho.
These APIs are experimental, so I guess it doesn't really matter if that contract (if it even is a contract and not a "coincidence") is broken. I would personally prefer an approach where it's added to Script since it more closely mirrors SourceTextModule, so I won't be arguing in favor of a third parameter 😀
This issue has been marked as stale due to 210 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.
This issue has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.
Activity
SimenB commentedon Oct 22, 2020
(
vmlabel probably makes just as much sense asmodule🙂)devsnek commentedon Oct 22, 2020
We should add the needed properties to scripts. Extending the
importModuleDynamicallycallback would be unfortunate.SimenB commentedon Oct 22, 2020
That would mean the passed in
Scriptmust be different from the outer one, right? E.g. this works fine todayIf
innerScriptwere to have e.g.filenameon it, that would necessarily have to be different fromouterScript, I believe. Since I can run the script many times in different contexts before it completes its execution. Dunno if there's a use case for them being the same instance, tho.These APIs are experimental, so I guess it doesn't really matter if that contract (if it even is a contract and not a "coincidence") is broken. I would personally prefer an approach where it's added to
Scriptsince it more closely mirrorsSourceTextModule, so I won't be arguing in favor of a third parameter 😀devsnek commentedon Oct 22, 2020
oh yeah i guess thats why i didn't add a context property to it. i'll have to think about this a bit more.
github-actions commentedon Jun 27, 2026
This issue has been marked as stale due to 210 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.
SimenB commentedon Jul 8, 2026
Still relevant, but yet another one that's possibly better tracked in #62720?
github-actions commentedon Oct 8, 2026
This issue has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.