-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bug: vitest run --coverage
throws Not implemented: inspector.Session.prototype.connect
#25004
Comments
Looks like this is caused by |
Related to #23882 |
For some reason we didn't register the `node:inspector` module, which lead to a panic when trying to import it. This PR registers it. Related: #25004
I am feeling sorry that all I can do is report bugs. Unfortunately, I ran into the following new error while trying to measure test coverage in the repo with the HEAD of Deno.
It means that thanks to @marvinhagemeister, the bug I originally reported was resolved. |
Yeah the whole |
@marvinhagemeister |
Is the statement about |
This statement isn't true. We're currently in the process of updating our documentation in preparation for Deno 2. |
The error now looks like the below (Updated the title):
|
vitest run --coverage
crashes with panicvitest run --coverage
throws with Not implemented: inspector.Session.prototype.connect
vitest run --coverage
throws with Not implemented: inspector.Session.prototype.connect
vitest run --coverage
throws Not implemented: inspector.Session.prototype.connect
#25198 might solve this issue |
implement local inspector future changes: - wire up InspectorServer to enable open/close/url - wire up connectToMainThread Fixes #25004
Version: Deno 1.45.5
I ran into the following error (panic) when running
DENO_FUTURE=1 deno run -A npm:vitest run --coverage
:This bug always happens when trying to measure test coverage with
@vitest/coverage-v8
. Here is the repo to reproduce it. Thanks you in advance!https://github.com/yasaichi-sandbox/deno-vitest-cov
NOTE:
@vitest/coverage-istanbul
is another way to measure test coverage and works well with Deno. One cons is that it seems slower than using v8 because of an effort for instrumentation.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: