test: refactor the code in test-dns-ipv6

[edsadr]

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

• remove the manual control for functions execution
• use common.mustCall to control the functions execution automatically
• use let and const instead of var

[mscdex]

Same deal as the other dns test refactor PR, this should be formatted better.

[edsadr]

Fixing this now for both

[edsadr]

@mscdex went for the arrow function, but in many cases even a new line was required, so idented them too, PTAL and if you are OK with this format will fix the other PR to match

[thefourtheye]

Nit: isIPv6 is already defined at the beginning of the file. We can use that consistently.

[edsadr]

@thefourtheye just fixed it as suggested

[Trott]

Nit: either assert.strictEqual(running, false); or assert(!running);.

[edsadr]

@Trott just fixed as suggested

[italoacasas]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/5376/console

[edsadr]

the CI looks good, I guess just need the LGTM from @mscdex, @thefourtheye and @Trott about their requested changes

[Trott]

@nodejs/testing

[edsadr]

any feedback/update for this one? want to also update #10200 according which is also pending

[italoacasas]

ping @nodejs/testing

[santigimeno]

I would align the dns.resolve6 arguments

[edsadr]

@santigimeno , sorry buts just learning about the codestyle, could you please provide an example of how to properly align this:

const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com',
    common.mustCall((err, ips) => {
      assert.ifError(err);

      assert.ok(ips.length > 0);

      for (let i = 0; i < ips.length; i++)
        assert.ok(isIPv6(ips[i]));

      done();
    }));```

[santigimeno]

I would do something like this, but I don't think is that important:

TEST(function test_resolve6(done) {
  const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com',
                           common.mustCall((err, ips) => {
    assert.ifError(err);
    assert.ok(ips.length > 0);
    for (let i = 0; i < ips.length; i++)
      assert.ok(isIPv6(ips[i]));

    done();
  }));

  checkWrap(req);
});

[edsadr]

well... that way has problems with the linter as it is expecting the code to be like this:

const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com',
                            common.mustCall((err, ips) => {
                              assert.ifError(err);

                              assert.ok(ips.length > 0);

                              for (let i = 0; i < ips.length; i++)
                                assert.ok(isIPv6(ips[i]));

                              done();
                            }));

in the previous way I didn't have linter problems... just let me know what to do here then to keep the current or ident the whole function code...

I implemented all the other suggestions 🙂

[Trott]

@edsadr I think you have common.mustCall() and everything below it indented by 3 spaces too much. I think it should be like this:

const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com',
                         common.mustCall((err, ips) => {
                           assert.ifError(err);

                           assert.ok(ips.length > 0);

                           for (let i = 0; i < ips.length; i++)
                             assert.ok(isIPv6(ips[i]));

                           done();
                         }));

[Trott]

And, of course, you can always do something like this too:

const callback = common.mustCall((err, ipe) => {
  assert.ifError(err);
  ...
});

const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com', callback);

[santigimeno]

@edsadr forget about my styling comments. It's been more trouble than anything.

[edsadr]

no prob @santigimeno, still your suggestions helped me to learn a little bit about the codestyling ... I like @Trott suggestions, but I would propose to keep the current format for consistency, if I implement as suggested some other tests below will look weird... so.. what do you say?

[Trott]

@edsadr I think any reasonable indentation for this that the linter finds acceptable is acceptable by me. I think @santigimeno seems to feel the same.

[edsadr]

Ok @Trott ... then I think I will let it with the current identation... is not offending the linter, and looks ok

[santigimeno]

I think you can remove the braces

[santigimeno]

arg aligment

[santigimeno]

I would do return done(); as in other places in the file and would get rid of the else

[santigimeno]

Is this check really necessary?

[edsadr]

@santigimeno so, should I just remove the whole process.on('exit'.. ?

[santigimeno]

Yes, that's what I was suggesting

[santigimeno]

I think assert.ok(domains[i]); is redundant

[santigimeno]

maybe use assert.ifError(err); here

[santigimeno]

LGTM with some suggestions

[santigimeno]

I would do something like this, but I don't think is that important:

TEST(function test_resolve6(done) {
  const req = dns.resolve6('ipv6.google.com',
                           common.mustCall((err, ips) => {
    assert.ifError(err);
    assert.ok(ips.length > 0);
    for (let i = 0; i < ips.length; i++)
      assert.ok(isIPv6(ips[i]));

    done();
  }));

  checkWrap(req);
});

[santigimeno]

Style nit. I would rewrite it like this:

if (common.isFreeBSD) {
  assert(err instanceof Error);
  assert.strictEqual(err.code, 'EAI_BADFLAGS');
  assert.strictEqual(err.hostname, 'www.google.com');
  assert.ok(/getaddrinfo EAI_BADFLAGS/.test(err.message));
  return done();
}

assert.ifError(err);

[santigimeno]

Yes, that's what I was suggesting

[santigimeno]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/5451/

[italoacasas]

Landed 5e781a3