vite-node seems to incorrectly orders process.nextTick relative to microtasks

[Evilu]

Describe the bug

Description

vite-node does not respect Node.js's documented event loop ordering, specifically the guarantee that process.nextTick callbacks execute before other microtasks (Promises and queueMicrotask).

According to [Node.js documentation](https://nodejs.org/en/learn/asynchronous-work/understanding-processnexttick), process.nextTick callbacks should always be processed before the microtask queue. However, vite-node executes Promise and queueMicrotask callbacks before process.nextTick callbacks.

Reproduction

Expected Behavior

vite-node should maintain Node.js event loop ordering:

1. Synchronous code ('S')
2. process.nextTick queue ('N')
3. Microtask queue - Promises and queueMicrotask ('P', 'Q')
4. Timer phase ('T')
5. Check phase ('I')

Actual Behavior

vite-node incorrectly executes in this order:

1. Synchronous code ('S')
2. Microtask queue ('P', 'Q')
3. process.nextTick queue ('N') ❌ Should be before microtasks
4. Check phase ('I')
5. Timer phase ('T')

Impact

This breaks fundamental Node.js guarantees and can cause:

• Race conditions in code relying on nextTick priority
• Incompatibility when switching between node and vite-node
• Unexpected behavior in timing-sensitive applications
• Violation of Node.js event loop contracts that developers depend on

Reproduction

Create a file test.js: Promise.resolve().then(() => console.log('P')); queueMicrotask(() => console.log('Q')); process.nextTick(() => console.log('N')); setImmediate(() => console.log('I')); setTimeout(() => console.log('T')); console.log('S'); Run with Node.js and vite-node: bash $ node test.js S N P Q T I $ vite-node test.js S P Q N I T

System Info

- vite-node version: 3.2.4 (also reproduced on 5.0.0)
- Node.js version: tried with v22.21.1 v23.6.1 ,v25.1.0
- Operating System: macOS 26.0.1
- Package Manager: npm

Used Package Manager

npm

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guide.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Check that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A, please open a GitHub Discussion instead.
• The provided reproduction is a minimal reproducible of the bug.

Contributions

• I am willing to submit a PR to fix this issue
• I am willing to submit a PR with failing tests (actually just go ahead and do it, thanks!)