test_runner: handled change for exposing 'spec' reporter

[Sumi0]

Fixes: Issue#48112

Other reporters (dot, tap) by signature are a function while 'spec'
reporter is a ES6 class.

This behaviour of api spec is causing difference in semantics while
consumption since it has not been addressed anywhere in the document
(it has to be instantiated).

Instead of making changes in the signature of spec.js, i have proposed
changes where the 'spec' reporter gets exposed in reporter.js

Refs: reporter/spec.js
Refs: (@line-no:143) test_runner/utils.js

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[Sumi0]

I do not understand why is the test failing @line-no:79 test-runner-run.mjs.
Where could be the root-cause ? @MoLow@aduh95

[MoLow]

you should debug locally with ./node test/parallel/test-runner-run.mjs

[Sumi0]

I do not understand why is the test failing @line-no:79 test-runner-run.mjs.
Where could be the root-cause ? @MoLow@aduh95

 not ok 9 - should be piped with spec
---
duration_ms: 1767.493155
failureType: 'cancelledByParent'
error: 'Promise resolution is still pending but the event loop has already resolved'
code: 'ERR_TEST_FAILURE'
stack: |-
process.emit (node:events:523:35)
...

[aduh95]

Suggested change

	value: spec??functionSpecReporter(){
	returnReflectConstruct(require('internal/test_runner/reporter/spec'),arguments);
	value: functionSpecReporter(){
	spec??=require('internal/test_runner/reporter/spec');
	returnReflectConstruct(spec,arguments,new.target);

(not sure about the new.target)

[Sumi0]

Let me run full test this time on my local and check.

[Sumi0]

@atlowChemi I have tried all versions of returning instance of a class (imported with require), either with new keyword or with Reflect.construct, and both are not working.
I am not able to identify the Root cause.

[cjihrig]

@Sumi0 are you still planning to work on this, or should it be closed?

[github-actions]

This issue/PR was marked as stalled, it will be automatically closed in 30 days. If it should remain open, please leave a comment explaining why it should remain open.

[benjamingr]

This was already superseded by #49184