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: merge test with unnecessary child process #25025

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

sam-github
Copy link
Contributor

Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

@addaleax @Trott You agree?

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

Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Dec 13, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 13, 2018

Original test was added by @tniessen in 88351a22eda so pinging them...

// This used to segfault. See: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/9819
common.expectsError(
() => crypto.createHmac('sha256', 'key').digest({
toString: () => { throw new Error("boom"); },
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Linter complains about double-quote on this line.

Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with the double quotes changed to single quotes.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 14, 2018

Looks like there are competing CI runs for this that both are running on the same commit.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/19535/
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/19545/

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 15, 2018

Between the two CIs, all variants have passed.

@Trott Trott added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Dec 15, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 17, 2018

Landed in b54d4a6

@Trott Trott closed this Dec 17, 2018
Trott pushed a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2018
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: nodejs#25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 25, 2018
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: #25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 25, 2018
refack pushed a commit to refack/node that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: nodejs#25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 12, 2019
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: #25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
@BethGriggs BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2019
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2019
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: #25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2019
Test didn't require child process creation. While this test has not been
unstable, child process creation is slower and can be flaky in ci, so
test directly for the segfault regression.

PR-URL: #25025
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
@sam-github sam-github deleted the merge-segv-hash-test branch March 20, 2019 15:28
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. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants