test_runner: make skip/todo/expectFailure use JS truthiness

[VaishnavIUpadyaya]

Fixes#61815

Updates skip, todo, and expectFailure handling in the test runner
to use JavaScript truthiness instead of explicit undefined/false checks.

This ensures:

• Empty string ('') is treated as false
• Behavior matches the documented "truthy" semantics

Adds a test to verify that skip: '' does not skip the test.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[JakobJingleheimer]

Looks like the doc already state truthiness too.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.69%. Comparing base (53bcd11) to head (814ea72).
⚠️ Report is 235 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #62346 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 89.70% 89.69% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 678 691 +13 Lines 207195 213953 +6758 Branches 39730 41039 +1309 ==========================================
+ Hits 185862 191904 +6042 - Misses 13438 14146 +708 - Partials 7895 7903 +8 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/test.js	96.80% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 89 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.

[MoLow]

why not? this seems wrong to me

[MoLow]

I would fix the docs, not the implementation - it seems for correct

[MoLow]

@atlowChemi@JakobJingleheimer WDYT?

[atlowChemi]

I can see why both behaviors would make sense.
Do we know what other test runners do?

[VaishnavIUpadyaya]

Thanks for the feedback!

I based this change on the docs describing these options as "truthy", so I assumed an empty string ('') should be treated as false.

That said, I see your point — changing the implementation could introduce unintended breaking behavior. Updating the docs to reflect the current behavior sounds reasonable.

I'm happy to update this PR to focus on the docs instead. Let me know what you prefer!

[JakobJingleheimer]

I think there's a decent chance an empty string is an accident, but the user could be relying on something that outputs a potentially empty string.

I think in general, truthy/falsy makes sense; since that includes an empty string, yeah.

I'm not sure what others do. I'll take a look this evening.

[JakobJingleheimer]

It looks like jest and mocha do not have this—they expose them only as methods like test.only('…') and test.skip('…').

[ljharb]

tape has this, and uses truthiness.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/71954/

[vassudanagunta]

Is this hung up on test failures? Or on the bug in code vs docs question?