refactor(test): add common method to start server in background #3495
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
devoto13
force-pushed
the
background-server
branch
from
a0e9b21
to
8620af0
Compare
|
✅ Build karma 244 completed (commit ad25459fac by @devoto13) |
|
✅ Build karma 245 completed (commit 73d85e1b07 by @devoto13) |
|
✅ Build karma 245 completed (commit d9efd7d561 by @devoto13) |
|
✅ Build karma 246 completed (commit d9efd7d561 by @devoto13) |
devoto13
commented
May 5, 2020
johnjbarton
suggested changes
May 5, 2020
The existing code had pretty confusing logic (old lines 33-36)`: when background server start fails it is actually considered a success, but child process is not started. Because of this `lastRun` contains result output of the `karma start`. This is no longer the case, hence two test cases had to be updated as they never executed `karma run` despite the statement and were asserting against `karma start` output. This should be more clear now. As background server process now has its own variable to store output, there is no need for a dedicated runOut command and it can be removed.
devoto13
force-pushed
the
background-server
branch
from
8620af0
to
11a3348
Compare
|
✅ Build karma 247 completed (commit 341b694b46 by @devoto13) |
|
✅ Build karma 246 completed (commit 341b694b46 by @devoto13) |
johnjbarton
approved these changes
May 5, 2020
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.0.5 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
anthony-redFox
pushed a commit
to anthony-redFox/karma
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2023
…a-runner#3495) The existing code had pretty confusing logic (old lines 33-36)`: when background server start fails it is actually considered a success, but child process is not started. Because of this `lastRun` contains result output of the `karma start`. This is no longer the case, hence two test cases had to be updated as they never executed `karma run` despite the statement and were asserting against `karma start` output. This should be more clear now. As background server process now has its own variable to store output, there is no need for a dedicated runOut command and it can be removed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The existing code had pretty confusing logic (old lines 33-36): when background server start fails it is actually considered a success, but child process is not started. Because of this
lastRuncontains result output of thekarma start. This is no longer the case, hence two test cases had to be updated as they never executedkarma rundespite the statement and were asserting againstkarma startoutput. This should be more clear now.As background server process now has its own variable to store output, there is no need for a dedicated runOut command and it can be removed.