GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — test: refactor test-http-information-processing by Trott · Pull Request #32547 · nodejs/node Conversation
Member
Replace magic numbers with constant. Checklist
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
addaleax
approved these changes
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Collaborator
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
jasnell
reviewed
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
jasnell
reviewed
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/30175/ ⭐️ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
common.mustCall variant can be used here.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could, but I'm not sure we should. This test isn't checking to see if res.end() fires its callback or not. If the response isn't sent, the test will fail. We don't need the extra check. Adding checks that are unrelated to the test case makes it harder for someone reading the code to understand what the test is actually supposed to be testing.
This makes it sound like I'm much more opposed to the idea than I actually am. I'm on the fence, around a -0 or so.
I was a -1 about 10 minutes ago, so 10 minutes from now, I'll probably be an enthusiastic +1.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test isn't checking to see if res.end() fires its callback or not
correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the case with most of 100+ http test cases?
res.endwhether http tests should check life cycle events are met or not I can also work towards implementing this across other tests too.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- intent of the test does not cover explicit checking on
res.end- but as a matter of practice, they do that check
I'm not seeing that with res.end() calls. I'm using grep and doing a naive/superficial check, so results may be imperfect but close enough to draw reasonable conclusions:
res.end() in parallel/test-http* have a callback wrapped in mustCall(). The majority of them are like the call here where res.endI() is called and no callback is provided.muscCall(), only one file checks empty callback: test-http-outgoing-end-multiple.js. That makes sense for that test because it is literally checking that calling res.end() multiple times will work as expected.I don't think we should add a check for a callback here that we're not using. Again, I'm not strongly opposed, but I am mildly resistant. 😀
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I used this command grep -e "res.on('end" -e "response.on('end" test-http*.js | grep "mustCall" | wc -l and got around 50 instances. Unfortunately I don't have the insight to validate their context. so I will leave it at that. Thank you!
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Replace magic numbers with constant. Use for loop for repeated code. Reduce console logging. Remove unneeded countdown module use. PR-URL: nodejs#32547 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
|
Landed in 8905be2 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I honestly have no idea what happened. I did make that change, but yeah, clearly I didn't push it up or something.... |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I wonder if I did it on some other PR but left the comment and clicked "Resolve" in this one.... |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
No worries, I'll mark it as a todo for a future round of edits. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Replace magic numbers with constant. Use for loop for repeated code. Reduce console logging. Remove unneeded countdown module use. PR-URL: #32547 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Replace magic numbers with constant. Use for loop for repeated code. Reduce console logging. Remove unneeded countdown module use. PR-URL: #32547 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.