@ejose19 awesome work on the PR, this is looking really great and nice to see full destructuring support. Can we add some of the following test cases please:

• Const -> Let conversion: const o = await 1
• Function variables not being rescoped: await (async () => { let p = await 1; return p; })();
• Block scopes supported / not being rescoped: { let p = await 1; }
• Var scoping being excluded from all this: var p = await 1 (should be a global)
• Var scoping function variables: await (async () => { var p = await 1; return p; })();
• Var scoping block scopes: { var p = await 1; } (should be a global)

@ejose19 awesome work on the PR, this is looking really great and nice to see full destructuring support. Can we add some of the following test cases please:

* Const -> Let conversion: `const o = await 1`

* Function variables not being rescoped: `await (async () => { let p = await 1; return p; })();`

* Block scopes supported / not being rescoped: `{ let p = await 1; }`

* Var scoping being excluded from all this: `var p = await 1` (_should be a global_)

* Var scoping function variables: `await (async () => { var p = await 1; return p; })();`

* Var scoping block scopes: `{ var p = await 1; }` (_should be a global_)

Can you please put each test case along with the expected result? It's not clear for me based on that alone what should be the result. This one Const -> Let conversion: const o = await 1 can be excluded as it's already part of the suite:

@guybedford now that you mention it, we can add some for await, but besides that nothing comes to my mind right now.

BTW: What I need to do to fix lint-commit-message error, squash into a single commit with proper fix?

BTW: What I need to do to fix lint-commit-message error, squash into a single commit with proper fix?

You don't need to fix it for the PR to land, it is usually done by the collaborator landing the commit – squashing commits and force pushing tend to make reviewing PRs harder IMHO, so I would recommend to ignore it for this time.

@ejose19 I would really like to see this feature move towards stability for unflagging, so if you think some cases of for await would help ensure stability that would be great, but it is up to you.

It looks like the test/parallel/test-repl-top-level-await.js test is failing on CI. You can run that locally via ./tools/test.py test/parallel/test-repl-top-level-await to debug further.

@ejose19 I would really like to see this feature move towards stability for unflagging, so if you think some cases of for await would help ensure stability that would be great, but it is up to you.

It looks like the test/parallel/test-repl-top-level-await.js test is failing on CI. You can run that locally via ./tools/test.py test/parallel/test-repl-top-level-await to debug further.

I was only working on test-repl-preprocess-top-level-await suite but now I see there are other suites that needs a change, I'll take a look.

Ok, added many new cases and fixed the issues with the other test suite.

Ping for more reviewers - @nodejs/repl

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/38887/

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/38907/

Landed in 394fdec. Congrats on your first Node.js contribution!