Skip to content

test: improve test-child-process-fork-and-spawn #10273

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

edsadr
Copy link
Member

@edsadr edsadr commented Dec 15, 2016

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

test

Description of change
  • use const instead of var for required modules
  • use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added test Issues and PRs related to the tests. lts-watch-v6.x labels Dec 15, 2016
Copy link
Member

@santigimeno santigimeno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with a suggestion

@@ -20,6 +20,6 @@ switch (process.argv[2] || '') {
}

function checkExit(statusCode) {
assert.equal(statusCode, 0);
assert.strictEqual(statusCode, 0);
process.nextTick(process.exit);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you can remove the process.nextTick(process.exit);

@santigimeno
Copy link
Member

Copy link
Contributor

@evanlucas evanlucas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with @santigimeno's suggestion

@edsadr
Copy link
Member Author

edsadr commented Dec 15, 2016

Implemented @santigimeno suggestion, @lpinca could you please set the CI again?

@lpinca
Copy link
Member

lpinca commented Dec 15, 2016

Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The changes LGTM. Would you mind also updating the assert(0); to use common.fail()?

* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick
@edsadr
Copy link
Member Author

edsadr commented Dec 17, 2016

@cjihrig just changed assert(0) ... need a new CI, please

@JungMinu
Copy link
Member

Copy link
Member

@JungMinu JungMinu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@italoacasas
Copy link
Contributor

Landed 8b367c5

italoacasas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
cjihrig pushed a commit to cjihrig/node that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: nodejs#10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
@italoacasas italoacasas mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2016
cjihrig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2017
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants