fs: enable chunked reading for large files in readFileHandle

[mertcanaltin]

Added chunked reading support to readFileHandle to handle files larger than 2 GiB, resolving size limitations while preserving existing functionality.

#55864

[mertcanaltin]

I wonder if I should apply this sorting in fs.js, right now I just did it for promises,

in addition there are still places that use ERR_FS_FILE_TOO_LARGE I did not delete this message so as not to break them

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.24%. Comparing base (8a3b11c) to head (4e4486b).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #56022   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.24%   90.24%           
=======================================
  Files         741      741           
  Lines      241384   241385    +1     
  Branches    45480    45480           
=======================================
+ Hits       217844   217849    +5     
+ Misses      15097    15089    -8     
- Partials     8443     8447    +4     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/fs.js	98.33% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
lib/internal/fs/promises.js	92.85% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

... and 31 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mertcanaltin]

I removed the limit test because the limit for reading large files exceeding the GiB limit with fs.readFile has been removed.

[BridgeAR]

I added the tsc label to discuss, if we want to allow users to read such big files into memory, or if it would be better to try to point out streams instead.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[BridgeAR]

The error is removed from the promise version but it's missing the callback readFile implementation. The error itself would not be needed anymore due to that and also has to be removed.
This has to be addressed before we could land this.

We discussed in the TSC meeting that it's not a good idea to read beyond that, while it's acceptable for some cases.
We also discussed around warning when reaching that limit instead. We did not yet have consensus around it, but we'll discuss it again next week to finish the decision for that.

[gireeshpunathil]

just wondering what is the next action here - @BridgeAR

[BridgeAR]

@gireeshpunathil I believe you wanted to think about the warning again.

I kept my change request since the implementation should also include the callback version next to the warning. That's currently missing :)

[mertcanaltin]

@gireeshpunathil I believe you wanted to think about the warning again.

I kept my change request since the implementation should also include the callback version next to the warning. That's currently missing :)

thanks a lot for your comments, unfortunately I saw this place late and now I sent a commit for the callback version

[BridgeAR]

The original reason for the limit was AFAIK something about some systems on some versions not being able to read that file size. If that's the case, we'd have to handle chunking on our side. I am just not certain if that still applies or if it's a legacy issue.

Please also add the warning instead of the error.

[gireeshpunathil]

@gireeshpunathil I believe you wanted to think about the warning again.

I kept my change request since the implementation should also include the callback version next to the warning. That's currently missing :)

I thought we are going to continue the discussion in the TSC on the necessity of the warning, as we didn't converge on that IIRC.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mertcanaltin]

this test was successful on my local linux machine

[mertcanaltin]

Hello everyone, I wonder if there is an update about this place @jasnell @BridgeAR 🙏

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mcollina]

Added baking for lts label to wait backporting this.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/70603/

[mertcanaltin]

Hi, I solved the conflict. @mcollina, maybe you want to look.

[mertcanaltin]

for failed heavy senario (5GIB) in parallel test, I moved heavy test a separate pummel.

fail: https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/29168561775/job/86585920007?pr=56022