fix: Node v24 DEP0190 warning by removing args for shell: true #3193
+12
−8
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Passing an args array together with
shell: truetriggers Node.js deprecation warningDEP0190Issue Number: nestjs/nest#15943
What is the new behavior?
When shell is enabled, the CLI now passes a single command string to spawn instead of using the args array
This matches the pattern recommended by a Node.js member in
nodejs/help#5063 (comment)
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
This change follows Node.js API guidance, rather than introducing a new escaping strategy.
Node.js deprecated the
args + shell: truecombination because the API shape gives a false impression that arguments are safely escaped, while they are in fact just concatenated into a single shell command string (see the DEP0190 change innormalizeSpawnArguments).This PR:
shell: true, and keepingcommand + argsonly whenshellisfalse( the same pattern Node.js itself uses internally ).args + shell: truecombination.Proper shell escaping / input hardening is intentionally out of scope for this PR and should be handled separately in a follow-up change, closer to where potentially untrusted input enters the system.