Skip to content

test: improve debugger custom test - #55767

Closed
mertcanaltin wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
mertcanaltin:mert/improve-debugger-custom-test
Closed

test: improve debugger custom test#55767
mertcanaltin wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:mainfrom
mertcanaltin:mert/improve-debugger-custom-test

Conversation

@mertcanaltin

@mertcanaltinmertcanaltin commented Nov 7, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I tried to improve this test using node:test

@nodejs-github-botnodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test Issues and PRs related to the tests. labels Nov 7, 2024
@mertcanaltinmertcanaltin changed the title Mert/improve debugger custom test test: improve debugger custom testNov 7, 2024
@mertcanaltin
mertcanaltinforce-pushed the mert/improve-debugger-custom-test branch 2 times, most recently from f939522 to 1d905c4CompareNovember 7, 2024 16:26
@mertcanaltin
mertcanaltinforce-pushed the mert/improve-debugger-custom-test branch from 1d905c4 to fbcd2adCompareNovember 7, 2024 16:30
@codecov

codecovBot commented Nov 7, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.40%. Comparing base (7788999) to head (fbcd2ad).
Report is 800 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #55767 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.41% 88.40% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 654 654 Lines 187752 187752 Branches 36125 36127 +2 ==========================================
- Hits 165993 165983 -10 - Misses 15000 15007 +7 - Partials 6759 6762 +3 

see 34 files with indirect coverage changes

@mertcanaltinmertcanaltin added the review wanted PRs that need reviews. label Nov 9, 2024
@mertcanaltinmertcanaltin added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. and removed review wanted PRs that need reviews. labels Dec 23, 2024

@lpincalpinca left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I only see a refactor to use node:test for no good reason. There is only a simple test, no subtests. This is not an improvement in my opinion.

@mertcanaltin

mertcanaltin commented Dec 24, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I only see a refactor to use node:test for no good reason. There is only a simple test, no subtests. This is not an improvement in my opinion.

I agree with your comment that the change does not provide a significant contribution to the test file however, the motivation behind this change was to establish a standardized structure in the codebase and transition to the modern node:test module provided by Node.js

@lpinca

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I know and there is no consensus yet (#54796, #56027, #55716).

@mertcanaltin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I know and there is no consensus yet (#54796, #56027, #55716).

thanks for sharing, can I mark this with blocker tag then ?

by the way, I tried to migrate some tests by grouping them

#56039
#56038
#56037
#56036
#56035
#56034
#56033
#56032
#56031
#56030
#56029

@lpinca

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There is already a request for changes so it does not make much sense to add the "blocked" label. Feel free to add it to the other PRs.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

author readyPRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started.needs-ciPRs that need a full CI run.testIssues and PRs related to the tests.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@mertcanaltin@lpinca@jasnell@watilde@nodejs-github-bot