Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: remove unused config #21985

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

benjamingr
Copy link
Member

process.maxTickDepth was removed in v0.12 a whole while ago and was mostly removed from our code base. There are still some places it was left in old benchmarks and tests.

This PR removes those. Wasn't sure if to label it test or chore or benchmark - seemed very insignificant to think a lot about it for this tiny PR.

  • 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

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added benchmark Issues and PRs related to the benchmark subsystem. process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. test Issues and PRs related to the tests. labels Jul 26, 2018
Copy link
Member

@apapirovski apapirovski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for cleaning this up!

Copy link
Contributor

@refack refack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please restore test descriptions

@@ -23,12 +23,6 @@
require('../common');
const assert = require('assert');

// this is the inverse of test-next-tick-starvation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we keep the test description (these 3 lines)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, can revert this - though I didn't find it very informative if you do I'll revert.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll revert except the third line

@@ -25,9 +25,6 @@ const Readable = require('stream').Readable;
const r = new Readable();
const N = 256 * 1024;

// Go ahead and allow the pathological case for this test.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It no longer allows the pathological use case though since maxTickDepth was removed so the comment is incorrect (and has been since 0.12). Is there alternative phrasing you'd prefer?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did not associate the comment specifically with maxTickDepth. If you are sure it's related, then I would assume the whole test is obsolete, and should be removed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@refack the test verifies the behaviour of a synchronous read on the stream. I've added a comment I think makes the most sense. I think benjamingr@782149d explains why it was added

process.maxTickDepth was removed in v0.12 a whole while ago and was
mostly removed from our code base. There are still some places it was
left in old benchmarks and tests.

This PR removes setting the value in those tests and
benchmarks.

PR-URL:
Reviewed-By:
@benjamingr benjamingr force-pushed the remove-outdated-config branch from ea862ff to 6ab5841 Compare July 26, 2018 15:28
@refack
Copy link
Contributor

refack commented Jul 26, 2018

refack the test verifies the behaviour of a synchronous read on the stream. I've added a comment I think makes the most sense

Thanks for following up.

@maclover7
Copy link
Contributor

@maclover7 maclover7 added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Jul 28, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jul 28, 2018

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Aug 1, 2018

Resume Build: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16136/ (edit @maclover7: ✔️)

@maclover7
Copy link
Contributor

Landed in d68f946

@maclover7 maclover7 closed this Aug 3, 2018
maclover7 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2018
process.maxTickDepth was removed in v0.12 a whole while ago and was
mostly removed from our code base. There are still some places it was
left in old benchmarks and tests.

This PR removes setting the value in those tests and
benchmarks.

PR-URL: #21985
Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 4, 2018
process.maxTickDepth was removed in v0.12 a whole while ago and was
mostly removed from our code base. There are still some places it was
left in old benchmarks and tests.

This PR removes setting the value in those tests and
benchmarks.

PR-URL: #21985
Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. benchmark Issues and PRs related to the benchmark subsystem. process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.