test_runner: use run() options with isolation="none"

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b

[inukshuk]

When using run() programatically with isolation="none", testNamePatterns, testSkipPatterns, and only were ignored. This combination of options only worked when set via CLI flags, because parseCommandLine() is still used to seed globalOptions.

Closes#57399

This is almost the same as #58496 which was my starting point for this. The original PR did not address only, which is equally missing. It also did not overwrite the options if they were already in globalOptions: the only way for them to be there is via parseCommandLine() above. However, I believe we need to always override them. When run() is used in code with these options, I'd always expect them to take effect and this is also what already happens with isolation="process", which forward the run() options to the child process not the CLI ones.

This also uses a fixture for running the tests as was requested in the original PR.

The test spawns a child process, because running a test within the currently running test without isolation is problematic (tests would hang for me, could be related to #57394 but it's arguably not something that should be done).

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (cf30b2e) to head (c61404d).
⚠️ Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62269 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.11% 90.13% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 752 752 Lines 251861 251873 +12 Branches 47365 47361 -4 ==========================================
+ Hits 226955 227024 +69 + Misses 16238 16175 -63 - Partials 8668 8674 +6 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/runner.js	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

... and 31 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.

[inukshuk]

I rebased this on main to make sure it's still working.

For added context, I'm working with the test runner in Electron where there are substantial differences to the process model and it would be very helpful to have all the run() options available even with isolation turned off. Happy to explore this further/differently if that would be preferable.

[mcollina]

The commit is missing the signoff.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/73491/

[inukshuk]

My apologies, it's my first PR here. I've squashed the two commits and updated the commit message

[github-actions]

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.

[inukshuk]

I think this is ready to merge. Happy to make any changes if necessary!

[jasnell]

@inukshuk ... since it's been a couple months since CI was run on this and because you've pushed commit after that CI was run, can I ask you to rebase this to latest main then we'll run CI on it again.

[inukshuk]

I re-based on origin/main and ran the tests again locally; force pushed the PR branch.

[github-actions]

Failed to start CI

- Validating Jenkins credentials
✔ Jenkins credentials valid
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/73491/
SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<', ..." https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/32127626402

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/76154/

[trivikr]

Landed in 34db39b