Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
This should not be changed. 1. caught should be a boolean and ok does a loose equal check. 2. The second argument would now be the error message and the third argument would be ignored.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
IMO, this should definitely be changed, but not the way it is in this PR right now.
There are at least two options.
Since
caughtis initialized tofalseand only ever changed totrueinside of code that is in this file,strictEqual()is unnecessary. So this should be fine:Alternatively, if you want to insist on
strictEqual()for the type-checking aspect, that's fine but then the string literal third argument should be removed (and possibly moved to a comment above the call) because you care about whether the test failed becausecaughtwasfalseorcaughtwas the string"true"instead of the booleantrue, etc.I think either of these options are better than what's there now.
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.
Changed
assert.ok(caught, true, 'execSync should throw');to
assert.ok(caught, 'execSync should throw');