added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message #16829

chrbergert · 2017-11-06T16:14:13Z

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
documentation is changed or added
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

joyeecheung · 2017-11-07T08:47:20Z

test/parallel/test-child-process-spawnsync-maxbuf.js

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ const args = [
 {
  const ret = spawnSync(process.execPath, args, { maxBuffer: 1 });

-  assert.ok(ret.error, 'maxBuffer should error');
+  assert.ok(ret.error, `instead of an error there is ${ret.error}` );


Since ret is returned by spawnSync, ret.error can only be either an Error or undefined, so if it fails this would always be "instead of an error there is undefined", which does not seem very helpful... I think changing the message to child process does not error when maxBuffer is set to 1 would be easier to understand.

Good point, thank you

…ned: "child process does not error when maxBuffer is set to 1"

gireeshpunathil · 2017-11-07T10:47:36Z

@joyeecheung - PTAL
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/11263/

gireeshpunathil · 2017-11-07T11:15:49Z

test/parallel/test-child-process-spawnsync-maxbuf.js

@@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ const args = [
 {
  const ret = spawnSync(process.execPath, args, { maxBuffer: 1 });

-  assert.ok(ret.error, 'maxBuffer should error');
+  assert.ok(ret.error, 'child process does not error \
+when maxBuffer is set to 1');


this your last commit introduced non-standard indentations. Please will you correct it? The previous commit was fair enough, dont know why you pushed again

thanks for the review. Sorry, that I have to change it again. I only wanted to fix the error that the linter was throwing, where i exceeded the maximum line length of 80.

gireeshpunathil · 2017-11-07T12:00:18Z

Now that you pushed a commit while the CI was running (which would have picked up the older / newer commit depending on the timing of the push), the CI result is going to be inconclusive ping @Trott to confirm if that is the case.

Trott · 2017-11-07T12:21:32Z

Hi @chrbergert! Thanks for the PR and welcome. A few things:

Looking at this file and the task that was given out, I think this probably wasn't a good task. I'm really sorry about that. But let's keep going because there's stuff to do on this file anyway, and so we'll shift gears to that.
This fails linting because of the space before the close parentheses.
I'm not sure the new message is significantly better than the old message. I don't think the old message is as problematic as originally believed. Again, this is where I messed up curating tasks, so sorry about that!

So, a few things:

To check for lint errors, run make lint-js. It will take 20 or 30 seconds the first time, but should take only a second or two on subsequent runs because it caches results of unchanged files.
I'd say let's revert the error message change (or not if you or @joyeecheung think the new message is better--I personally think they're about the same so I'm fine with either one--one thing about the new error message is it )
If you do want to keep the new message, you can avoid the string concatenation like this:

assert.ok(ret.error,
          'child process does not error when maxBuffer is set to 1');

I think I'd prefer this:

assert.ok(ret.error, 'error expected when maxBuffer is set to 1');

Whether or not you change the contents of that assertion message, here are some changes to be made in the test, if you don't mind:
- Remove the comment // This is actually not os.EOL?. Doesn't seem to be important/relevant.
- Add a comment near the top (under require('common') explaining what the test does:

// This test checks that the maxBuffer option for child_process.spawnSync()
// works as expected.

Trott

requesting changes in comment above

- removed comment that wasn't relevant/important - added comment that explains what the test does

chrbergert · 2017-11-07T20:28:49Z

Hi together,

first of all, thanks for all the input and the warm welcome.
I now did the changes to the file like suggested:

removed initial change for error message
removed comment that wasn't relevant/important
added comment that explains what the test does

Before I ran lint-js locally and experimented a bit with it. Think I got the process for this, finally.

So, hope it goes through now and thanks again helping me doing my first contribution to this awesome project.

Trott

(When landing, we'll need to be careful to make sure the commit message accurately reflects the change.)

Trott · 2017-11-12T16:39:51Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/11378/

Trott · 2017-11-13T19:20:29Z

CI was good except for Raspberry Pi devices which have (had?) been having build problems. Let's try again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-arm-fanned/12541/

Trott · 2017-11-13T23:01:46Z

Landed in 21a7459.
Thanks for the contribution! 🎉

* remove comment that isn't relevant/important * add comment that explains what the test does PR-URL: nodejs#16829 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

* remove comment that isn't relevant/important * add comment that explains what the test does PR-URL: #16829 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message

534c3ec

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Nov 6, 2017

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Nov 6, 2017

View reviewed changes

gireeshpunathil added the code-and-learn Issues related to the Code-and-Learn events and PRs submitted during the events. label Nov 6, 2017

mscdex added the child_process Issues and PRs related to the child_process subsystem. label Nov 6, 2017

joyeecheung reviewed Nov 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

changed error message to a more speaking information about what happe…

41586a2

…ned: "child process does not error when maxBuffer is set to 1"

fixing linting issue

ed558f3

gireeshpunathil reviewed Nov 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

changed line break to a more standard way

7d05644

Trott requested changes Nov 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

- removed initial change for error message

9d58db5

- removed comment that wasn't relevant/important - added comment that explains what the test does

joyeecheung approved these changes Nov 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

lpinca approved these changes Nov 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott approved these changes Nov 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell approved these changes Nov 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott closed this Nov 13, 2017

MylesBorins added land-on-v6.x labels Nov 17, 2017

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2017

v8.9.2 proposal #17204

Merged

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2017

v6.12.1 proposal #17180

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message #16829

added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message #16829

chrbergert commented Nov 6, 2017

joyeecheung Nov 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

chrbergert Nov 7, 2017

gireeshpunathil commented Nov 7, 2017

gireeshpunathil Nov 7, 2017

chrbergert Nov 7, 2017

gireeshpunathil commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott left a comment

chrbergert commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott left a comment

Trott commented Nov 12, 2017

Trott commented Nov 13, 2017

Trott commented Nov 13, 2017

added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message #16829

added template for better error explanation to assert.ok error message #16829

Conversation

chrbergert commented Nov 6, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

joyeecheung Nov 7, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chrbergert Nov 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gireeshpunathil commented Nov 7, 2017

gireeshpunathil Nov 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chrbergert Nov 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gireeshpunathil commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chrbergert commented Nov 7, 2017

Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented Nov 12, 2017

Trott commented Nov 13, 2017

Trott commented Nov 13, 2017

joyeecheung Nov 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading