| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
|
Maybe testing with a different killSignal than the default too? LGTM anyway if CI is green. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you mind adding a comment mentioning that the console.log() calls are intentionally part of the test.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM with a nit
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mind adding common.mustCall?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Did you mean elapsed?
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Not sure why, but when I ran the test locally without the common require, I get this error cp.exec(cmd, { timeout: 2 ** 30 }, (err, stdout, stderr) => {
^
SyntaxError: Unexpected token *
Also, this trips the linter, ./node tools/eslint/bin/eslint.js --cache --rulesdir=tools/eslint-rules \
benchmark lib test tools
node/test/parallel/test-child-process-exec-timeout.js
27:28 error Parsing error: Unexpected token *
✖ 1 problem (1 error, 0 warnings)
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Oh okay. Exponentiation Operator is only in ES7, so you might have to use Math.pow atleast for the sake of the linter. But I wonder how V8 allows this already. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Hmmm, apparently V8 allowed this harmony feature to be turned on by default. Reference: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3915#c18 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
PR to allow the exponentiation operator in the linter: #9218 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This allows us to use the exponentiation operator. PR-URL: nodejs#9218 Ref: nodejs#9208 (comment) Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
This allows us to use the exponentiation operator. PR-URL: #9218 Ref: #9208 (comment) Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile(). PR-URL: nodejs#9208 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
|
Green CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4666/. Landing. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Belated LGTM. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile(). PR-URL: #9208 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
This allows us to use the exponentiation operator. PR-URL: #9218 Ref: #9208 (comment) Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
|
@cjihrig this landed cleanly on v6.x with a small modification. v4.x is failing this test though output: === release test-child-process-exec-timeout ===
Path: parallel/test-child-process-exec-timeout
assert.js:85
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: '/bin/sh -c /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/out/Release/node /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/test/parallel/test-child-proc === '/Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/out/Release/node /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/test/parallel/test-child-process-exec-ti
at /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/test/parallel/test-child-process-exec-timeout.js:22:10
at /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/test/common.js:402:15
at ChildProcess.exithandler (child_process.js:220:5)
at emitTwo (events.js:87:13)
at ChildProcess.emit (events.js:172:7)
at maybeClose (internal/child_process.js:854:16)
at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (internal/child_process.js:222:5)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/thealphanerd/code/node/v4.x/test/parallel/test-child-process-exec-timeout.js
any idea what is up? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile(). PR-URL: #9208 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
|
I believe it's the difference between this on v6: And this on v4: That assertion can probably be dropped. It's not super important. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This allows us to use the exponentiation operator. PR-URL: #9218 Ref: #9208 (comment) Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <teddy.katz@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile(). PR-URL: #9208 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
|
is it worth backporting without that assertation? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
If you deem the test worthy of backporting, then err.cmd assertions aren't important. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile(). PR-URL: #9208 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
test
Description of change
This commit adds coverage for the timeout option used by child_process exec() and execFile().