fix: propagate wrapped subcommand exit codes

[saschabuehrle]

Fixes #11293

The wrapper was only handling process spawn errors, so non-zero exits from the delegated command were lost. This wires the child process close event and exits with the same status (or forwards the signal) so wrapper behavior matches direct command execution.

Greetings, saschabuehrle

[stdlib-bot]

👋 Hi there! 👋

And thank you for opening your first pull request! We will review it shortly. 🏃 💨

Getting Started

• Please read our contributing guidelines if you haven't already.
• For development guidance, refer to the development guide.

Next Steps

1. A project maintainer will approve GitHub Actions workflows for your PR.
2. All CI checks must pass before your submission can be fully reviewed.
3. You'll need to address any failures in linting or unit tests.

Running Tests Locally

You can use make to run any of the CI commands locally from the root directory of the stdlib repository:

# Run tests for all packages in the math namespace:
make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/.*"

# Run benchmarks for a specific package:
make benchmark BENCHMARKS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/base/special/sin/.*"

If you haven't heard back from us within two weeks, please ping us by tagging the "reviewers" team in a comment on this PR.

If you have any further questions while waiting for a response, please join our Zulip community to chat with project maintainers and other community members.

We appreciate your contribution!

Documentation Links

• Contributing Guidelines
• Development Guide
• Zulip Chat
• make rules for running examples
• make rules for running unit tests
• make rules for running benchmarks

[stdlib-bot]

Hello! Thank you for your contribution to stdlib.

We noticed that the contributing guidelines acknowledgment is missing from your pull request. Here's what you need to do:

1. Please read our contributing guidelines.

2. Update your pull request description to include this checked box:

   - [x] Read, understood, and followed the [contributing guidelines](https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md)

This acknowledgment confirms that you've read the guidelines, which include:

• The developer's certificate of origin
• Your agreement to license your contributions under the project's terms

We can't review or accept contributions without this acknowledgment.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. We look forward to reviewing your contribution!

[Vipeen-Kumar]

Hey @saschabuehrle — thanks for the quick fix!
Two small, optional suggestions:

Use process.execPath instead of 'node' in spawn(...) so the child uses the same Node binary as the parent.
Consider process.exitCode = code instead of process.exit(code || 0) to avoid forcing immediate termination and allow pending cleanup/log flushes.

Also, looks like check_contributing_guidelines_acceptance is failing due to the missing contributing-guidelines checkbox in the PR description.

[kgryte]

Consider process.exitCode = code instead of process.exit(code || 0) to avoid forcing immediate termination and allow pending cleanup/log flushes.

Better would be to use the corresponding cli APIs. See https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/tree/develop/lib/node_modules/%40stdlib/cli/ctor.

[kgryte]

Use process.execPath instead of 'node' in spawn(...) so the child uses the same Node binary as the parent.

@Vipeen-Kumar This is a separate issue and not applicable to the upstream issue which this PR is intended to address. Please ensure that whatever LLM code review you are running is actually tailored and scoped to the issue at hand.

[Vipeen-Kumar]

@kgryte Thanks for calling that out — you’re right.
I went a bit beyond the scope of what this PR is trying to fix. Sorry for the noise 🙏
I’ll keep my review comments tighter and focused on the issue at hand going forward.