test: replace third argument in assert.strictEqual#19162
Closed
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Replace the third argument in assert.strictEqual with something much more informative so that it display relevant information when the test fails
ContributorAuthor
ryzokuken commented Mar 6, 2018
@Trott here it is! 😄 |
Trott approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
Member
Trott commented Mar 6, 2018
Contributor
apapirovski left a comment
apapirovski left a comment There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be better with no message at all which will then show a comparison of the two values.
Contributor
apapirovski left a comment
apapirovski left a comment There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if we do put a message in, it should be similar to the one above it and mention at what index the error occurred and for what hash. At least that's information that's not provided by the default strictEqual message.
ContributorAuthor
ryzokuken commented Mar 6, 2018
@apapirovski is it better now? Let me know if anything is amiss. |
apapirovski approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
Contributor
apapirovski commented Mar 6, 2018
Lite CI for the change: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite/224/ |
gireeshpunathil approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
tniessen approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
lpinca approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
Member
lpinca left a comment
lpinca left a comment There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM but I agree with @apapirovski. Almost all strictEqual assertions are better without the message argument.
ContributorAuthor
ryzokuken commented Mar 6, 2018
@lpinca@apapirovski so, should I remove it altogether? As it is, it does give us some extra information (hash and index) |
BridgeAR approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
Member
BridgeAR commented Mar 6, 2018
In this case it is probably fine to have the extra message. Otherwise it is difficult to see what test case just ran. |
Contributor
apapirovski commented Mar 6, 2018
I'm fine with it either way. It offers a bit more info since it provides the hash and index, which would make debugging a tiny bit easier. Admittedly that can also be gleaned from the comparison value but it's a bit less convenient. |
cjihrig approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
jasnell approved these changes Mar 6, 2018
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Member
jasnell commented Mar 6, 2018
Landed in 78a7536 |
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Merged
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2018
PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MayaLekova pushed a commit to MayaLekova/node that referenced this pull request May 8, 2018
PR-URL: nodejs#19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
jasnell pushed a commit to jasnell/node that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2018
PR-URL: nodejs#19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2018
Backport-PR-URL: #22380 PR-URL: #19162 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]>
Merged
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
10 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Replace the third argument in assert.strictEqual with something much
more informative so that it display relevant information when the
test fails
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
test