GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — test_runner: do not tag-filter test file wrappers by atlowChemi · Pull Request #65170 · nodejs/node

Conversation

@atlowChemi

@atlowChemi atlowChemi commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Under run({ testTagFilters, isolation: 'process' }) the parent process's FileTest wrappers have empty tag sets, so any include filter filtered out the wrappers themselves and no test file was ever spawned. The same applied to the single re-spawned child in watch mode with isolation: 'none'.

Exempt file wrappers from tag filtering: the filter is re-emitted to the child process and applied there, matching isolation: 'none' results.

This also removes the testTagFilterExpressions bookkeeping and the isolation-conditional assignment of testTagFilters, both of which existed only to keep the parent process from filtering its own file wrappers. The parent now always holds the canonical filter values and re-emits them to child processes.

Refs: #63221

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@atlowChemi
test_runner: do not tag-filter test file wrappers
216b8cc
Under run({ testTagFilters, isolation: 'process' }) the parent
process's FileTest wrappers have empty tag sets, so any include filter
filtered out the wrappers themselves and no test file was ever
spawned. The same applied to the single re-spawned child in watch mode
with isolation 'none'.

Exempt file wrappers from tag filtering: the filter is re-emitted to
the child process and applied there, matching isolation 'none'
results.

This also removes the testTagFilterExpressions bookkeeping and the
isolation-conditional assignment of testTagFilters, both of which
existed only to keep the parent process from filtering its own file
wrappers. The parent now always holds the canonical filter values and
re-emits them to child processes.

Refs: nodejs#63221
Signed-off-by: atlowChemi <[email protected]>
@nodejs-github-bot

nodejs-github-bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/test_runner
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test_runner Issues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem. labels Aug 9, 2026
benjamingr
benjamingr approved these changes Aug 9, 2026
View reviewed changes
MoLow
MoLow approved these changes Aug 9, 2026
View reviewed changes
@atlowChemi atlowChemi added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. Only starts once the PR has an approving review. label Aug 9, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. Only starts once the PR has an approving review. label Aug 9, 2026
@nodejs-github-bot

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@nodejs-github-bot

nodejs-github-bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75711/

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@atlowChemi atlowChemi added the author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. label Aug 9, 2026
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 9, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.31%. Comparing base (65a0265) to head (216b8cc).
⚠️ Report is 23 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #65170      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.32%   90.31%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         759      759              
  Lines      248342   248336       -6     
  Branches    46866    46857       -9     
==========================================
- Hits       224320   224291      -29     
- Misses      15461    15466       +5     
- Partials     8561     8579      +18     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js 94.72% <100.00%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
lib/internal/test_runner/test.js 97.93% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
lib/internal/test_runner/utils.js 65.98% <100.00%> (-0.37%) ⬇️

... and 46 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.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@atlowChemi atlowChemi added the commit-queue PRs queued for automated landing through the Commit Queue. label Aug 10, 2026
@nodejs-github-bot
nodejs-github-bot merged commit 2749388 into nodejs:main Aug 11, 2026
85 of 86 checks passed

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@nodejs-github-bot

nodejs-github-bot commented Aug 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Landed in 2749388

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue PRs queued for automated landing through the Commit Queue. label Aug 11, 2026
aduh95 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 13, 2026
@atlowChemi @aduh95
test_runner: do not tag-filter test file wrappers
1a7e82f
Under run({ testTagFilters, isolation: 'process' }) the parent
process's FileTest wrappers have empty tag sets, so any include filter
filtered out the wrappers themselves and no test file was ever
spawned. The same applied to the single re-spawned child in watch mode
with isolation 'none'.

Exempt file wrappers from tag filtering: the filter is re-emitted to
the child process and applied there, matching isolation 'none'
results.

This also removes the testTagFilterExpressions bookkeeping and the
isolation-conditional assignment of testTagFilters, both of which
existed only to keep the parent process from filtering its own file
wrappers. The parent now always holds the canonical filter values and
re-emits them to child processes.

Refs: #63221
Signed-off-by: atlowChemi <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #65170
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
@atlowChemi
atlowChemi deleted the test_runner-filetest-tag-filter branch August 17, 2026 16:48
aduh95 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 25, 2026
@atlowChemi @aduh95
test_runner: do not tag-filter test file wrappers
4e06739
Under run({ testTagFilters, isolation: 'process' }) the parent
process's FileTest wrappers have empty tag sets, so any include filter
filtered out the wrappers themselves and no test file was ever
spawned. The same applied to the single re-spawned child in watch mode
with isolation 'none'.

Exempt file wrappers from tag filtering: the filter is re-emitted to
the child process and applied there, matching isolation 'none'
results.

This also removes the testTagFilterExpressions bookkeeping and the
isolation-conditional assignment of testTagFilters, both of which
existed only to keep the parent process from filtering its own file
wrappers. The parent now always holds the canonical filter values and
re-emits them to child processes.

Refs: #63221
Signed-off-by: atlowChemi <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #65170
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
@github-actions github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2026
2026-08-26, Version 26.8.0 (Current) #65551
Merged
aduh95 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2026
@atlowChemi @aduh95
test_runner: do not tag-filter test file wrappers
d01dda7
Under run({ testTagFilters, isolation: 'process' }) the parent
process's FileTest wrappers have empty tag sets, so any include filter
filtered out the wrappers themselves and no test file was ever
spawned. The same applied to the single re-spawned child in watch mode
with isolation 'none'.

Exempt file wrappers from tag filtering: the filter is re-emitted to
the child process and applied there, matching isolation 'none'
results.

This also removes the testTagFilterExpressions bookkeeping and the
isolation-conditional assignment of testTagFilters, both of which
existed only to keep the parent process from filtering its own file
wrappers. The parent now always holds the canonical filter values and
re-emits them to child processes.

Refs: #63221
Signed-off-by: atlowChemi <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #65170
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
@github-actions github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2026
2026-09-08, Version 24.21.0 'Krypton' (LTS) #65873
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@benjamingr benjamingr benjamingr approved these changes
@MoLow MoLow MoLow approved these changes

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test_runner Issues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

4 participants

@atlowChemi @nodejs-github-bot @benjamingr @MoLow
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.