-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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
test: remove unused config #21985
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this 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!
There was a problem hiding this 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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please keep (maybe move to L24 as per https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/doc/guides/writing-tests.md#test-structure)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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:
ea862ff
to
6ab5841
Compare
Thanks for following up. |
Resume Build CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16050/ |
Resume Build: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/16136/ (edit @maclover7: ✔️) |
Landed in d68f946 |
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>
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>
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
orchore
orbenchmark
- seemed very insignificant to think a lot about it for this tiny PR.make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes