feat(DEP0164): handle non-integer codes passed to process.exit & process.exitCode

[KevinSailema]

Summary

This PR adds a new codemod recipe to handle DEP0164 by coercing unsupported values passed to process.exit(code) and assigned to process.exitCode into integer-compatible values.

Closes #405.

What this adds

• New recipe: @nodejs/process-exit-coercion-to-integer
• New transform to migrate:
  • process.exit(value)
  • process.exitCode = value
• Full recipe wiring:
  • codemod manifest
  • workflow definition
  • package configuration
  • input/expected fixture tests

Transformation behavior

The codemod applies explicit and safe coercions aligned with the issue requirements:

• Preserves valid values (no change):
  • undefined
  • null
  • integer numbers
  • integer strings (example: "1")
• Converts boolean values:
  • process.exit(true) -> process.exit(1)
  • process.exit(false) -> process.exit(0)
  • process.exitCode = success -> process.exitCode = success ? 0 : 1
• Converts floating-point and numeric expressions explicitly:
  • process.exit(1.5) -> process.exit(Math.floor(1.5))
  • process.exit(0.5 + 0.7) -> process.exit(Math.floor(0.5 + 0.7))
• Converts non-integer string literals in process.exit to 1
• Handles object literal assignment for process.exitCode with code extraction when present:
  • process.exitCode = { code: 1 } -> process.exitCode = 1

Safety and scope

• Conservative by design: ambiguous identifier values are left unchanged unless safely inferable from local literal initialization.
• No dynamic evaluation and no runtime behavior injection.
• No unrelated refactors or formatting-only changes.

Tests

Added fixture coverage for the 10 scenarios from the issue plus additional edge cases:

• import/require aliases for process
• unknown identifier no-op behavior
• object code field with float coercion

Validation run:

• Recipe tests passed
• Repository pre-commit checks passed (lint, type-check, workspace tests)

[JakobJingleheimer]

Given the mere moments between opening this PR and your #405 (comment), it's fairly clear this was fully AI-generated. Could you please confirm what you used to generate it, how much of it, and which specific pieces you reviewed of the generated code.

[KevinSailema]

Thanks for calling this out, yes, I used AI assistance (GitHub Copilot Chat in VS Code) to speed up drafting.

What was AI-assisted:
initial recipe scaffolding (package/workflow/codemod manifests)
first draft of transform structure
initial test fixture generation

What I manually reviewed and adjusted:
all transform logic in src/workflow.ts, including binding resolution and replacement safety
each input/expected fixture pair in tests
edge-case behavior (no-op vs transform) to avoid unsafe rewrites
final command validation (workspace test + pre-commit)

You are right that I should have disclosed this in the PR description from the start.

[AugustinMauroy]

Also missing readme.

[AugustinMauroy]

aslo for you info you have to use this structure of testing

Codemod leverages a before ("input") + after ("expected") snapshot comparison. Codemod supports 2 options:

• 👍 Single-file fixtures

  tests/
    some-test-case-description/
      input.ts
      expected.ts
    another-test-case-description/
      input.ts
      expected.ts
  

• 👎 Directory snapshot fixtures

  tests/
    input/
      some-test-case-description.ts
      another-test-case-description.ts
    expected
      some-test-case-description.ts
      another-test-case-description.ts
  

Use the Single-file fixtures option.

[KevinSailema]

1. Added missing README for the recipe.
2. Refactored workflow.ts to rely more on AST node kinds/fields and reduce string-based manipulation.
3. Migrated tests to the single-file fixture structure (tests/<case>/input.js + expected.js) as requested.
4. Updated the recipe test script to run against ./tests.

[AugustinMauroy]

Better but still something to improve

[AugustinMauroy]

LGMT !