tools: add eslint rule for hasCrypto checking by danbev · Pull Request #13813 · nodejs/node

danbev · 2017-06-20T07:21:36Z

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for
crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl).

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

tools

danbev · 2017-06-20T07:22:05Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8753/

refack · 2017-06-20T13:21:50Z

I love the idea!
How hard will it be to generalize it for inspector as well?

cjihrig · 2017-06-20T13:27:19Z

Seems like a good idea to me. Is it possible to tighten up the check though? For example, could it only check IfStatement nodes. In those nodes, check that the condition is !common.hasCrypto or !common.hasFipsCrypto. It could also check that common.skip() is called in the if body.

gibfahn · 2017-06-20T14:08:03Z

Any reason not to:
\' -> "

No reason, let me fix that too. Thanks!

gibfahn · 2017-06-20T14:08:15Z

skippped -> skipped

Can't believe I missed that, will fix.

gibfahn · 2017-06-20T14:10:06Z

cc/ @not-an-aardvark, @silverwind, @Trott

danbev · 2017-06-20T16:32:29Z

I love the idea!

I can't take credit for the idea as it was @gibfahn's

danbev · 2017-06-20T16:36:09Z

Seems like a good idea to me. Is it possible to tighten up the check though? For example, could it only check IfStatement nodes. In those nodes, check that the condition is !common.hasCrypto or !common.hasFipsCrypto. It could also check that common.skip() is called in the if body.

I'll take a look, but one issue is that there are places in tests where the check is not used to skip the test but instead only run part of a test, for example in test-async-wrap-getasyncid.js.

cjihrig · 2017-06-20T16:40:41Z

If those cases are the exception, we could disable the rule for a line. Or, if it makes sense, refactor the test(s).

not-an-aardvark · 2017-06-21T03:58:23Z

Nitpick: It seems like this function closes over context anyway, so I don't think the context parameter here is needed.

Good point, I'll fix that. Thanks

danbev · 2017-06-21T05:45:46Z

If those cases are the exception, we could disable the rule for a line. Or, if it makes sense, refactor the test(s).

I'll take a closer look at the usages of it and see if it makes sense to disable or refactor. Thanks

danbev · 2017-06-27T12:27:09Z

Rebased and refactored CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8843/

danbev · 2017-06-27T17:32:20Z

test/windows-fanned failure looks unrelated

console output:

gyp: c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2\common.gypi not found (cwd: c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2\test\addons\06_passing_wrapped_objects_around) while reading includes of binding.gyp while trying to load binding.gypgyp ERR! configure error gyp ERR! stack Error: `gyp` failed with exit code: 1gyp ERR! stack at ChildProcess.onCpExit (c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2\deps\npm\node_modules\node-gyp\lib\configure.js:336:16)gyp ERR! stack at emitTwo (events.js:125:13)gyp ERR! stack at ChildProcess.emit (events.js:213:7)gyp ERR! stack at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (internal/child_process.js:198:12)gyp ERR! System Windows_NT 6.1.7601gyp ERR! command "c:\\workspace\\node-test-binary-windows\\RUN_SUBSET\\2\\VS_VERSION\\vs2015-x86\\label\\win2008r2\\Release\\node.exe" "c:\\workspace\\node-test-binary-windows\\RUN_SUBSET\\2\\VS_VERSION\\vs2015-x86\\label\\win2008r2\\deps\\npm\\node_modules\\node-gyp\\bin\\node-gyp" "rebuild" "--directory=test\\addons\\06_passing_wrapped_objects_around" "--nodedir=c:\\workspace\\node-test-binary-windows\\RUN_SUBSET\\2\\VS_VERSION\\vs2015-x86\\label\\win2008r2"gyp ERR! cwd c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2\test\addons\06_passing_wrapped_objects_aroundgyp ERR! node -v v9.0.0-pregyp ERR! node-gyp -v v3.6.2gyp ERR! not ok c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>TASKKILL /F /IM node.exe /T || TRUEERROR: The process "node.exe" not found.c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>TASKKILL /F /IM cctest.exe /T || TRUEERROR: The process "cctest.exe" not found.c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>TASKKILL /F /IM run-tests.exe /T || TRUEERROR: The process "run-tests.exe" not found.c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>TASKKILL /F /IM yes.exe /T || TRUEERROR: The process "yes.exe" not found.c:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>rm -rfv test/tmp* || truec:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>rm -vf ../test.tap || truec:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>mv test.tap ../test.tap || truemv: cannot stat 'test.tap': No such file or directoryc:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>git clean -fdx || truefatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .gitc:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>git reset --hard || truefatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .gitc:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>mv ../test.tap test.tap || truemv: cannot stat '../test.tap': No such file or directoryc:\workspace\node-test-binary-windows\RUN_SUBSET\2\VS_VERSION\vs2015-x86\label\win2008r2>exit /b 1 Build step 'Execute Windows batch command' marked build as failureTAP Reports Processing: STARTLooking for TAP results report in workspace using pattern: test.tapDid not find any matching files. Setting build result to FAILURE.Checking ^not okJenkins Text Finder: File set 'test.tap' is emptyNotifying upstream projects of job completionFinished: FAILURE

danbev · 2017-06-27T17:34:46Z

@cjihrig I've updated this now with your suggestions. Would you be able to take a look and see if this is what you had in mind?

cjihrig · 2017-06-27T18:09:23Z

This is getting closer. Ideally, I was hoping to have a single rule that could be parameterized, and it seems like you're really close there.

I'm also curious why a test like test-process-versions.js needs an eslint comment. That test has a hasCrypto check, but it doesn't require any of the crypto related modules.

danbev · 2017-06-28T05:15:44Z

I'm also curious why a test like test-process-versions.js needs an eslint comment. That test has a hasCrypto check, but it doesn't require any of the crypto related modules.

Ah good point, let me double check that.

danbev · 2017-06-28T11:21:12Z

This is getting closer. Ideally, I was hoping to have a single rule that could be parameterized, and it seems like you're really close there.

I'll take another look. I see some similarity between the inspector and crypto rule but not enough to be parameterized fully. For crypto we can check and verify that we are doing it in an if statement and that it contains a skip as you suggested. But for inspector this would simply be a call to common.skipIfInspectorDisabled(). If there is such a call nothing has to be done as it calls skip and exits, but this is not the case for the crypto check.
I might have been staring at this for tool long and therefore not seeing the solution here :)

refack · 2017-07-02T03:23:42Z

After reviewing #14021 I saw there is allot of if (!common.hasCrypto) common.skip('missing crypto'); cruft, so I had a different idea: add logic in common and maybe in test.py that if any of ['crypto', 'tls', 'https'] are required it automagicaly triggers skip

danbev · 2017-07-02T12:19:52Z

add logic in common and maybe in test.py that if any of ['crypto', 'tls', 'https'] are required it automagicaly triggers skip

There are a few cases where requiring crypto but not skipping the whole test might be appropriate. One example is a test that checks command line options and I think it makes sense for it to skip only the crypto related options and test the others.

refack · 2017-07-02T20:32:14Z

There are a few cases where requiring crypto but not skipping the whole test might be appropriate. One example is a test that checks command line options and I think it makes sense for it to skip only the crypto related options and test the others.

So we could have an equivalent to eslint-disable-line... But anyway my idea gets to the whole explicit vs implicit debate.
Your PR is good, if I figure out an elegant way to follow up on my idea I'll open a new PR later...

danbev · 2017-07-06T05:15:06Z

Rebased CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9003/

danbev · 2017-07-06T06:22:28Z

test/freebsd failure looks unrelated

console output:

not ok 680 parallel/test-http-server-keep-alive-timeout-slow-client-headers --- duration_ms: 1.464 severity: fail stack: |- events.js:182 throw er; // Unhandled 'error' event ^ Error: This socket has been ended by the other party at Socket.writeAfterFIN [as write] (net.js:356:12) at Timeout.setTimeout [as _onTimeout] (/usr/home/iojs/build/workspace/node-test-commit-freebsd/nodes/freebsd10-64/test/parallel/test-http-server-keep-alive-timeout-slow-client-headers.js:39:14) at ontimeout (timers.js:488:11) at tryOnTimeout (timers.js:323:5) at Timer.listOnTimeout (timers.js:283:5)

danbev · 2017-08-08T07:02:46Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9542/ (expecting the linter to fail)

danbev · 2017-08-16T07:46:32Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9681/

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl).

There are currently usages of common.hasCrypto which are not just for detecting if crypto support is available and then skip the test in question. For these case we still want to have a lint error generated which can then be disabled using an ESLint comment.

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector).

BridgeAR · 2017-08-30T19:36:48Z

Could @jasnell and @not-an-aardvark approve again? I think this could land right after.

jasnell · 2017-08-30T19:44:21Z

Still LGTM but a fresh CI before landing would be appreciated

not-an-aardvark · 2017-08-30T19:48:12Z

LGTM

BridgeAR · 2017-08-30T19:48:56Z

CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9891/

BridgeAR · 2017-08-30T21:07:59Z

Landed in 50ebac1 and c7dda49

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl). There are currently usages of common.hasCrypto which are not just for detecting if crypto support is available and then skip the test in question. For these case we still want to have a lint error generated which can then be disabled using an ESLint comment. PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector). PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

danbev · 2017-08-31T03:39:32Z

Thanks everyone!

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl). There are currently usages of common.hasCrypto which are not just for detecting if crypto support is available and then skip the test in question. For these case we still want to have a lint error generated which can then be disabled using an ESLint comment. PR-URL: nodejs/node#13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector). PR-URL: nodejs/node#13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl). There are currently usages of common.hasCrypto which are not just for detecting if crypto support is available and then skip the test in question. For these case we still want to have a lint error generated which can then be disabled using an ESLint comment. PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector). PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl). There are currently usages of common.hasCrypto which are not just for detecting if crypto support is available and then skip the test in question. For these case we still want to have a lint error generated which can then be disabled using an ESLint comment. PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector). PR-URL: #13813 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com>

MylesBorins · 2017-09-20T19:38:34Z

Should this be backported to v6.x-staging? If yes please follow the guide and raise a backport PR, if no let me know or add the dont-land-on label.

nodejs-github-bot added the tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. label Jun 20, 2017

vsemozhetbyt added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Jun 20, 2017

cjihrig mentioned this pull request Jun 20, 2017
tools: add eslint rule for inspector checking #13814
Closed
2 tasks

gibfahn reviewed Jun 20, 2017
View reviewed changes

jasnell approved these changes Jun 20, 2017
View reviewed changes

not-an-aardvark approved these changes Jun 21, 2017
View reviewed changes

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from aae61ff to 7e03560Compare June 27, 2017 12:25

Trott mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2017
tools: update to ESLint 4.1.1 #13946
Closed
2 tasks

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from 7e03560 to d48b968Compare June 28, 2017 06:09

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from d48b968 to c12d6d4Compare June 29, 2017 05:20

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch 2 times, most recently from 215d463 to 3c2db1aCompare July 6, 2017 05:14

danbev mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2017
test: add crypto check to http2 tests #14657
Closed
2 tasks

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from 3c2db1a to 733e3d8Compare August 8, 2017 07:01

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from 733e3d8 to 66a5501Compare August 16, 2017 07:45

danbev added 3 commits August 23, 2017 07:54

tools: add eslint rule for hasCrypto checking
99699c3
The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for crypto support (when Node is built --without-ssl).

tools: add eslint rule for inspector checking
11dc3d0
The motivation for this commit is to pick up early on missing checks for inspector support (when Node is built --without-inspector).

danbev force-pushed the hasCrypto-eslint-rule branch from 66a5501 to 11dc3d0Compare August 23, 2017 06:15

BridgeAR closed this Aug 30, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2017
v8.5.0 proposal #15308
Merged

MylesBorins added the backport-requested-v6.x label Sep 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

danbev commented Jun 20, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

refack commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

gibfahnJun 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbevJun 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gibfahnJun 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbevJun 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gibfahn commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jun 20, 2017

Uh oh!

not-an-aardvarkJun 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbevJun 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 21, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

refack commented Jul 2, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jul 2, 2017

Uh oh!

refack commented Jul 2, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jul 6, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Jul 6, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Aug 8, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Aug 16, 2017

Uh oh!

BridgeAR commented Aug 30, 2017

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Aug 30, 2017

Uh oh!

not-an-aardvark commented Aug 30, 2017

Uh oh!

BridgeAR commented Aug 30, 2017

Uh oh!

BridgeAR commented Aug 30, 2017

Uh oh!

danbev commented Aug 31, 2017

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Sep 20, 2017