test_runner: remove failure attribute in junit_report testcase element by devholic22 · Pull Request #59685 · nodejs/node

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

devholic22 · 2025-08-30T07:15:15Z

Fixes: #59593

This PR aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

Changes

• Remove non-compliant failure attribute from elements
• Update snapshot tests accordingly

Background

The JUnit XML specification mandates that failure details must be represented via a nested (child) <failure> element inside a <testcase>, rather than as an attribute.

However, the Node.js test runner previously:
• Incorrectly embedded the failure message as a failure="..." attribute on , which is not spec-compliant
• This caused compatibility issues with tools like GitLab, Jenkins, or any CI/CD pipeline that parses JUnit reports strictly

Before:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test" failure="The value must be 01 !== 0">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

After:

<testcase name="testName" time="0.002234" classname="test">
<failure type="testCodeFailure" message="The value must be 01 !== 0">

Testing

All existing tests pass

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-08-30T07:15:20Z

Review requested:

@nodejs/test_runner

jasnell · 2025-08-30T13:13:33Z

 children: [inspectWithNoCustomRetry(error, inspectOptions)],
 });
 currentTest.failures = 1;
- currentTest.attrs.failure = error?.message ?? '';


While the change the good, I wonder if we have to treat this as potentially breaking? @nodejs/test_runner @nodejs/tsc any thoughts? I'm fine landing as a semver-patch but want to be sure.

MoLow

LGTM. also not sure rgarding semver-major vs patch

nodejs-github-bot · 2025-09-01T20:30:57Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/68991/

codecov · 2025-09-01T21:19:53Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cc60845) to head (7cca5c1).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #59685 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 90.13% 90.13% =======================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251820 251819 -1 Branches 47352 47353 +1 =======================================
+ Hits 226974 226983 +9 - Misses 16158 16174 +16 + Partials 8688 8662 -26

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/junit.js	`95.32% <ø> (+0.55%)`	⬆️

... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

CuriousStork · 2025-11-24T15:29:39Z

Hello @atlowChemi

#59593 is auto-closed because #60274 has been merged, thank you.

Probably this PR also needs a ping, or should we reopen the issue #59593?

mcollina · 2026-01-20T21:06:00Z

The commit message here needs an amend

CuriousStork · 2026-02-16T07:06:52Z

Hello @devholic22

Are you planning to amend the commit message? Thank you.

github-actions · 2026-07-28T00:22:10Z

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 90 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.

CuriousStork · 2026-08-17T12:04:47Z

@jasnell @mcollina @MoLow Hi! Since the original author has been inactive for a while, could one of the collaborators please amend the commit message and land this on their behalf?

This is a useful fix for #59593 to keep the JUnit output spec-compliant, and it already has 5 approvals. Thanks!

This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

nodejs-github-bot · 2026-08-17T13:05:47Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/75926/

CuriousStork · 2026-08-26T11:30:41Z

@aduh95 Hi! It looks like the CI jobs have been stuck in pending for more than a week. Could you please re-trigger the run when you have a moment? Thanks!

nodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test_runner Issues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem. labels Aug 30, 2025

devholic22 mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2025
JUnit XML failure element and attribute are incorrect when using node:assert#59593
Closed

jasnell reviewed Aug 30, 2025
View reviewed changes

jasnell approved these changes Aug 30, 2025
View reviewed changes

MoLow approved these changes Aug 31, 2025
View reviewed changes

atlowChemi approved these changes Aug 31, 2025
View reviewed changes

lpinca approved these changes Sep 1, 2025
View reviewed changes

lpinca added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 1, 2025

github-actionsBot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Sep 1, 2025

benjamingr approved these changes Sep 1, 2025
View reviewed changes

AlexCannonball mentioned this pull request Oct 15, 2025
test_runner: fix line feed escaping in JUnit #60274
Merged

github-actionsBot added the stale Issues and PRs marked stale due to inactivity and scheduled for automatic closure. label Jul 28, 2026

test_runner: remove failure attribute from JUnit reporter
7cca5c1
This commit aligns the Node.js test runner’s JUnit XML output with the official JUnit specification by removing the non-standard failure attribute from elements and replacing it with a proper nested tag.

aduh95 force-pushed the fix-junit-element branch from 4a5ccc4 to 7cca5c1Compare August 17, 2026 12:44

aduh95 added author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. and removed stale Issues and PRs marked stale due to inactivity and scheduled for automatic closure. labels Aug 17, 2026

panva removed the author ready PRs with CI started, the required approvals, and no outstanding review comments. label Aug 31, 2026