Increase test coverage for fs/promises.js by humphd · Pull Request #19811 · nodejs/node

humphd · 2018-04-04T21:16:15Z

I was looking at test coverage for the new things in fs/promises.js and wanted to add some more. This adds test cases using FileHandle objects vs. only using paths or fds.

Due to #19057, I'm unable to run coverage locally on macOS; apologies for not including updated coverage info.

Trott · 2018-04-05T02:04:03Z

Hi @humphd! Welcome and thanks for the PR! It's possible that some/all of this is duplicated in #19605. Might want to compare and remove anything that's duplicated because that one looks like it's going to land very soon. (As in I'm actually in the middle of landing it RIGHT NOW.)

Trott · 2018-04-05T02:07:19Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14064/

humphd · 2018-04-05T03:39:35Z

@Trott OK, thanks, I'll compare with what's landed there and adjust this.

Trott · 2018-04-05T03:53:36Z

(Lone CI failure is unrelated. Can be re-run if this PR isn't going to change, but if there are any changes, we'll have to re-run all of CI anyway. So, either way...)

humphd · 2018-04-06T16:39:33Z

@Trott based on what was added in #19057, I've just reverted my changes to test/parallel/test-fs-promises-writefile.js and just included my additions to test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js, which are unmodified from my previous commit. I've also rebased this.

Trott · 2018-04-06T21:53:20Z

@nodejs/fs @nodejs/testing

Trott · 2018-04-06T21:53:51Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14103/

BridgeAR · 2018-04-09T10:47:27Z

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js

As a general note: we can actually use the following instead:

assert.rejects( // `mode` can't be > 0o777 () => fchmod(handle, (0o777 + 1)), { code: 'ERR_OUT_OF_RANGE', name: 'RangeError [ERR_OUT_OF_RANGE]' } );

BridgeAR · 2018-04-09T10:50:07Z

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js

Nit: can you please remove the console.log here?

thefourtheye · 2018-04-09T17:25:56Z

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js

Shouldn't this be compared with buf2?

Nit: Also, if we reduce magic numbers (like 11 in this case) it would be better.

thefourtheye · 2018-04-09T17:27:07Z

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js

It would be better, if did this for chmod as well.

BridgeAR · 2018-04-28T15:06:04Z

@humphd would you be so kind and have a look at the comments? :-)

humphd · 2018-04-28T15:30:04Z

@BridgeAR apologies for the delay. I'll update this week.

humphd · 2018-04-30T19:47:26Z

OK, I've rebased and done the following based on the reviews above:

switched try/catchs I added to use assert.rejects instead
removed stray console.log
gotten rid of magic numbers
corrected comparison of buf vs. buf2
added test cases for (0o777 + 1) on chmod and fchmod as well. I hope I've interpreted what was requested above correctly with this one. Please let me know if I should alter this.

BridgeAR · 2018-04-30T19:52:27Z

CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14602/

TimothyGu · 2018-04-30T21:00:48Z

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js

+
    await chmod(dest, 0o666);
    await fchmod(handle, 0o666);
+    handle.chmod(0o666);


Should this be awaited?

Indeed, thank you for spotting this. I'll fix.

addaleax · 2018-05-05T12:08:55Z

New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/18242/

mhdawson

LGTM

mhdawson · 2018-05-10T16:15:45Z

OSX CI failure looks unrelated, opened #20660

New CI run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14796/

addaleax · 2018-05-14T17:09:36Z

Landed in fcc46ee 🎉

PR-URL: #19811 Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>

humphd · 2018-05-15T14:20:08Z

Thanks for landing this @addaleax, and to the rest for your reviews and help spotting mistakes.

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Apr 4, 2018

humphd force-pushed the improve-fs-promises-coverage branch from 166aa52 to 7a97e40 Compare April 6, 2018 16:37

addaleax force-pushed the master branch from 4ae53af to 3dc5404 Compare April 6, 2018 16:53

Trott force-pushed the improve-fs-promises-coverage branch from 7a97e40 to be70489 Compare April 6, 2018 21:52

BridgeAR approved these changes Apr 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

thefourtheye reviewed Apr 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

test/parallel/test-fs-promises.js Outdated

Copy link

Contributor

thefourtheye Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be better, if did this for chmod as well.

ChALkeR mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2018

fs: promises fixes #20407

Merged

4 tasks

Increase test coverage for fs/promises.js

fffdce1

ChALkeR mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2018

fs/promises test coverage is poor. #20435

Closed

Address review comments

d20bde9

humphd force-pushed the improve-fs-promises-coverage branch from be70489 to d20bde9 Compare April 30, 2018 19:42

BridgeAR approved these changes Apr 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Apr 30, 2018

TimothyGu reviewed Apr 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

Add missing await + async on calls to chmod(), fchmod()

d1ac66f

TimothyGu approved these changes Apr 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

jasnell approved these changes May 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

mhdawson approved these changes May 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

ChALkeR added the experimental Issues and PRs related to experimental features. label May 8, 2018

addaleax closed this May 14, 2018

addaleax mentioned this pull request May 14, 2018

v10.2.0 proposal #20724

Merged

joyeecheung mentioned this pull request May 17, 2018

lib: mask mode_t type of arguments with 0o777 #20636

Closed

4 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

humphd commented Apr 4, 2018

Uh oh!

Trott commented Apr 5, 2018

Uh oh!

Trott commented Apr 5, 2018

Uh oh!

humphd commented Apr 5, 2018

Uh oh!

Trott commented Apr 5, 2018

Uh oh!

humphd commented Apr 6, 2018

Uh oh!

Trott commented Apr 6, 2018

Uh oh!

Trott commented Apr 6, 2018

Uh oh!

BridgeAR Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BridgeAR Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheye Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheye Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheye Apr 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BridgeAR commented Apr 28, 2018

Uh oh!

humphd commented Apr 28, 2018

Uh oh!

humphd commented Apr 30, 2018

Uh oh!

BridgeAR commented Apr 30, 2018

Uh oh!

TimothyGu Apr 30, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

humphd Apr 30, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 5, 2018

Uh oh!

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mhdawson commented May 10, 2018 • edited by addaleax Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

addaleax commented May 14, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

humphd commented May 15, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

10 participants

mhdawson commented May 10, 2018 •

edited by addaleax

Loading

addaleax commented May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading