test: increase coverage for stream writable

[Trott]

Refs: #41433 (comment)

[Trott]

Because of the bug fix in #41433, this test will pass on the current master branch. However, prior that fix, the test here would result in an error:

TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'enumerable')
at Array.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/common/index.js:606:35)
at Array.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/common/index.js:401:15)
at errorBuffer (node:internal/streams/writable:523:25)
at afterWrite (node:internal/streams/writable:502:5)
at afterWriteTick (node:internal/streams/writable:485:10)
at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:82:21)

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/41864/

[nodejs-github-bot]

Landed in 8de858b

[danielleadams]

@Trott for some reason this test is failing when I try to pull into v16.x-staging even though the dependent commit landed in the last 16.x. Do you mind taking a look? Thanks!

This is the failure:

node:assert:635
throw err;
^
AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: Expected values to be strictly deep-equal:
+ actual - expected
Comparison {
+ message: 'Cannot call end after a stream was destroyed'
- message: 'fhqwhgads'
}
at Array.<anonymous> (/Users/danielleadams/Code/nodejs/node/test/common/index.js:601:12)
at Array.<anonymous> (/Users/danielleadams/Code/nodejs/node/test/common/index.js:394:15)
at errorBuffer (node:internal/streams/writable:522:25)
at afterWrite (node:internal/streams/writable:501:5)
at afterWriteTick (node:internal/streams/writable:484:10)
at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:82:21) {
generatedMessage: true,
code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
actual: Error [ERR_STREAM_DESTROYED]: Cannot call end after a stream was destroyed
at new NodeError (node:internal/errors:371:5)
at errorBuffer (node:internal/streams/writable:522:26)
at afterWrite (node:internal/streams/writable:501:5)
at afterWriteTick (node:internal/streams/writable:484:10)
at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:82:21) {
code: 'ERR_STREAM_DESTROYED'
},
expected: { message: 'fhqwhgads' },
operator: 'throws'
}

[Trott]

@danielleadams I haven't confirmed, but I think that test (as written, anyway) depends on #39364 (efd40ea) which is semver-major, so I think we can leave it out of 16.x and earlier. That commit reverts cleanly on master, so an easy way to test would be to do that revert and see if the test fails on master. Unfortunately, my workspace is in a state right now that compilation will take an hour or two. I'm going to try anyway. (Or maybe an easy shortcut to confirm is to ask @ronag.)

[Trott]

Confirmed: Reverting efd40ea on master branch results in the test failing the same way:

gitpod /workspace/io.js (master) $ ./node test/parallel/test-stream-writable-final-throw.js node:assert:635 throw err; ^AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: Expected values to be strictly deep-equal:+ actual - expected Comparison {+ message: 'Cannot call end after a stream was destroyed'- message: 'fhqwhgads' } at Array.<anonymous> (/workspace/io.js/test/common/index.js:618:12) at Array.<anonymous> (/workspace/io.js/test/common/index.js:411:15) at errorBuffer (node:internal/streams/writable:523:25) at afterWrite (node:internal/streams/writable:502:5) at afterWriteTick (node:internal/streams/writable:485:10) at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:81:21) { generatedMessage: true, code: 'ERR_ASSERTION', actual: Error [ERR_STREAM_DESTROYED]: Cannot call end after a stream was destroyed at new NodeError (node:internal/errors:372:5) at errorBuffer (node:internal/streams/writable:523:26) at afterWrite (node:internal/streams/writable:502:5) at afterWriteTick (node:internal/streams/writable:485:10) at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:81:21) { code: 'ERR_STREAM_DESTROYED' }, expected: { message: 'fhqwhgads' }, operator: 'throws'}Node.js v18.0.0-pregitpod /workspace/io.js (master) $

Before reverting, it had passed.

So this is consistent with efd40ea being necessary for this test to pass. Since that commit will never land on 16.x, I think we can add the dont-land-on-16.x etc. labels.

Does that sound right to you, @danielleadams?

[danielleadams]

@Trott that makes sense to me. Thank you for investigating.