-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47k
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
Investigate uncovered differences between development and production #11618
Labels
Comments
gaearon
added a commit
to gaearon/react
that referenced
this issue
Nov 22, 2017
It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as facebook#11618.
Here’s another difference: in development, putting a string ref on a functional component throws with:
but in production gives you:
|
gaearon
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 22, 2017
* Move Jest setup files to /dev/ subdirectory * Clone Jest /dev/ files into /prod/ * Move shared code into scripts/jest * Move Jest config into the scripts folder * Fix the equivalence test It fails because the config is now passed to Jest explicitly. But the test doesn't know about the config. To fix this, we just run it via `yarn test` (which includes the config). We already depend on Yarn for development anyway. * Add yarn test-prod to run Jest with production environment * Actually flip the production tests to run in prod environment This produces a bunch of errors: Test Suites: 64 failed, 58 passed, 122 total Tests: 740 failed, 26 skipped, 1809 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Ignore expectDev() calls in production Down from 740 to 175 failed. Test Suites: 44 failed, 78 passed, 122 total Tests: 175 failed, 26 skipped, 2374 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Decode errors so tests can assert on their messages Down from 175 to 129. Test Suites: 33 failed, 89 passed, 122 total Tests: 129 failed, 1029 skipped, 1417 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Remove ReactDOMProduction-test There is no need for it now. The only test that was special is moved into ReactDOM-test. * Remove production switches from ReactErrorUtils The tests now run in production in a separate pass. * Add and use spyOnDev() for warnings This ensures that by default we expect no warnings in production bundles. If the warning *is* expected, use the regular spyOn() method. This currently breaks all expectDev() assertions without __DEV__ blocks so we go back to: Test Suites: 56 failed, 65 passed, 121 total Tests: 379 failed, 1029 skipped, 1148 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Replace expectDev() with expect() in __DEV__ blocks We started using spyOnDev() for console warnings to ensure we don't *expect* them to occur in production. As a consequence, expectDev() assertions on console.error.calls fail because console.error.calls doesn't exist. This is actually good because it would help catch accidental warnings in production. To solve this, we are getting rid of expectDev() altogether, and instead introduce explicit expectation branches. We'd need them anyway for testing intentional behavior differences. This commit replaces all expectDev() calls with expect() calls in __DEV__ blocks. It also removes a few unnecessary expect() checks that no warnings were produced (by also removing the corresponding spyOnDev() calls). Some DEV-only assertions used plain expect(). Those were also moved into __DEV__ blocks. ReactFiberErrorLogger was special because it console.error()'s in production too. So in that case I intentionally used spyOn() instead of spyOnDev(), and added extra assertions. This gets us down to: Test Suites: 21 failed, 100 passed, 121 total Tests: 72 failed, 26 skipped, 2458 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Enable User Timing API for production testing We could've disabled it, but seems like a good idea to test since we use it at FB. * Test for explicit Object.freeze() differences between PROD and DEV This is one of the few places where DEV and PROD behavior differs for performance reasons. Now we explicitly test both branches. * Run Jest via "yarn test" on CI * Remove unused variable * Assert different error messages * Fix error handling tests This logic is really complicated because of the global ReactFiberErrorLogger mock. I understand it now, so I added TODOs for later. It can be much simpler if we change the rest of the tests that assert uncaught errors to also assert they are logged as warnings. Which mirrors what happens in practice anyway. * Fix more assertions * Change tests to document the DEV/PROD difference for state invariant It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as #11618. * Remove unnecessary split between DEV/PROD ref tests * Fix more test message assertions * Make validateDOMNesting tests DEV-only * Fix error message assertions * Document existing DEV/PROD message difference (possible bug) * Change mocking assertions to be DEV-only * Fix the error code test * Fix more error message assertions * Fix the last failing test due to known issue * Run production tests on CI * Unify configuration * Fix coverage script * Remove expectDev from eslintrc * Run everything in band We used to before, too. I just forgot to add the arguments after deleting the script.
raphamorim
pushed a commit
to raphamorim/react
that referenced
this issue
Nov 27, 2017
* Move Jest setup files to /dev/ subdirectory * Clone Jest /dev/ files into /prod/ * Move shared code into scripts/jest * Move Jest config into the scripts folder * Fix the equivalence test It fails because the config is now passed to Jest explicitly. But the test doesn't know about the config. To fix this, we just run it via `yarn test` (which includes the config). We already depend on Yarn for development anyway. * Add yarn test-prod to run Jest with production environment * Actually flip the production tests to run in prod environment This produces a bunch of errors: Test Suites: 64 failed, 58 passed, 122 total Tests: 740 failed, 26 skipped, 1809 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Ignore expectDev() calls in production Down from 740 to 175 failed. Test Suites: 44 failed, 78 passed, 122 total Tests: 175 failed, 26 skipped, 2374 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Decode errors so tests can assert on their messages Down from 175 to 129. Test Suites: 33 failed, 89 passed, 122 total Tests: 129 failed, 1029 skipped, 1417 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Remove ReactDOMProduction-test There is no need for it now. The only test that was special is moved into ReactDOM-test. * Remove production switches from ReactErrorUtils The tests now run in production in a separate pass. * Add and use spyOnDev() for warnings This ensures that by default we expect no warnings in production bundles. If the warning *is* expected, use the regular spyOn() method. This currently breaks all expectDev() assertions without __DEV__ blocks so we go back to: Test Suites: 56 failed, 65 passed, 121 total Tests: 379 failed, 1029 skipped, 1148 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Replace expectDev() with expect() in __DEV__ blocks We started using spyOnDev() for console warnings to ensure we don't *expect* them to occur in production. As a consequence, expectDev() assertions on console.error.calls fail because console.error.calls doesn't exist. This is actually good because it would help catch accidental warnings in production. To solve this, we are getting rid of expectDev() altogether, and instead introduce explicit expectation branches. We'd need them anyway for testing intentional behavior differences. This commit replaces all expectDev() calls with expect() calls in __DEV__ blocks. It also removes a few unnecessary expect() checks that no warnings were produced (by also removing the corresponding spyOnDev() calls). Some DEV-only assertions used plain expect(). Those were also moved into __DEV__ blocks. ReactFiberErrorLogger was special because it console.error()'s in production too. So in that case I intentionally used spyOn() instead of spyOnDev(), and added extra assertions. This gets us down to: Test Suites: 21 failed, 100 passed, 121 total Tests: 72 failed, 26 skipped, 2458 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Enable User Timing API for production testing We could've disabled it, but seems like a good idea to test since we use it at FB. * Test for explicit Object.freeze() differences between PROD and DEV This is one of the few places where DEV and PROD behavior differs for performance reasons. Now we explicitly test both branches. * Run Jest via "yarn test" on CI * Remove unused variable * Assert different error messages * Fix error handling tests This logic is really complicated because of the global ReactFiberErrorLogger mock. I understand it now, so I added TODOs for later. It can be much simpler if we change the rest of the tests that assert uncaught errors to also assert they are logged as warnings. Which mirrors what happens in practice anyway. * Fix more assertions * Change tests to document the DEV/PROD difference for state invariant It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as facebook#11618. * Remove unnecessary split between DEV/PROD ref tests * Fix more test message assertions * Make validateDOMNesting tests DEV-only * Fix error message assertions * Document existing DEV/PROD message difference (possible bug) * Change mocking assertions to be DEV-only * Fix the error code test * Fix more error message assertions * Fix the last failing test due to known issue * Run production tests on CI * Unify configuration * Fix coverage script * Remove expectDev from eslintrc * Run everything in band We used to before, too. I just forgot to add the arguments after deleting the script.
Ethan-Arrowood
pushed a commit
to Ethan-Arrowood/react
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2017
* Move Jest setup files to /dev/ subdirectory * Clone Jest /dev/ files into /prod/ * Move shared code into scripts/jest * Move Jest config into the scripts folder * Fix the equivalence test It fails because the config is now passed to Jest explicitly. But the test doesn't know about the config. To fix this, we just run it via `yarn test` (which includes the config). We already depend on Yarn for development anyway. * Add yarn test-prod to run Jest with production environment * Actually flip the production tests to run in prod environment This produces a bunch of errors: Test Suites: 64 failed, 58 passed, 122 total Tests: 740 failed, 26 skipped, 1809 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Ignore expectDev() calls in production Down from 740 to 175 failed. Test Suites: 44 failed, 78 passed, 122 total Tests: 175 failed, 26 skipped, 2374 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Decode errors so tests can assert on their messages Down from 175 to 129. Test Suites: 33 failed, 89 passed, 122 total Tests: 129 failed, 1029 skipped, 1417 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Remove ReactDOMProduction-test There is no need for it now. The only test that was special is moved into ReactDOM-test. * Remove production switches from ReactErrorUtils The tests now run in production in a separate pass. * Add and use spyOnDev() for warnings This ensures that by default we expect no warnings in production bundles. If the warning *is* expected, use the regular spyOn() method. This currently breaks all expectDev() assertions without __DEV__ blocks so we go back to: Test Suites: 56 failed, 65 passed, 121 total Tests: 379 failed, 1029 skipped, 1148 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Replace expectDev() with expect() in __DEV__ blocks We started using spyOnDev() for console warnings to ensure we don't *expect* them to occur in production. As a consequence, expectDev() assertions on console.error.calls fail because console.error.calls doesn't exist. This is actually good because it would help catch accidental warnings in production. To solve this, we are getting rid of expectDev() altogether, and instead introduce explicit expectation branches. We'd need them anyway for testing intentional behavior differences. This commit replaces all expectDev() calls with expect() calls in __DEV__ blocks. It also removes a few unnecessary expect() checks that no warnings were produced (by also removing the corresponding spyOnDev() calls). Some DEV-only assertions used plain expect(). Those were also moved into __DEV__ blocks. ReactFiberErrorLogger was special because it console.error()'s in production too. So in that case I intentionally used spyOn() instead of spyOnDev(), and added extra assertions. This gets us down to: Test Suites: 21 failed, 100 passed, 121 total Tests: 72 failed, 26 skipped, 2458 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Enable User Timing API for production testing We could've disabled it, but seems like a good idea to test since we use it at FB. * Test for explicit Object.freeze() differences between PROD and DEV This is one of the few places where DEV and PROD behavior differs for performance reasons. Now we explicitly test both branches. * Run Jest via "yarn test" on CI * Remove unused variable * Assert different error messages * Fix error handling tests This logic is really complicated because of the global ReactFiberErrorLogger mock. I understand it now, so I added TODOs for later. It can be much simpler if we change the rest of the tests that assert uncaught errors to also assert they are logged as warnings. Which mirrors what happens in practice anyway. * Fix more assertions * Change tests to document the DEV/PROD difference for state invariant It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as facebook#11618. * Remove unnecessary split between DEV/PROD ref tests * Fix more test message assertions * Make validateDOMNesting tests DEV-only * Fix error message assertions * Document existing DEV/PROD message difference (possible bug) * Change mocking assertions to be DEV-only * Fix the error code test * Fix more error message assertions * Fix the last failing test due to known issue * Run production tests on CI * Unify configuration * Fix coverage script * Remove expectDev from eslintrc * Run everything in band We used to before, too. I just forgot to add the arguments after deleting the script.
NMinhNguyen
pushed a commit
to enzymejs/react-shallow-renderer
that referenced
this issue
Jan 29, 2020
* Move Jest setup files to /dev/ subdirectory * Clone Jest /dev/ files into /prod/ * Move shared code into scripts/jest * Move Jest config into the scripts folder * Fix the equivalence test It fails because the config is now passed to Jest explicitly. But the test doesn't know about the config. To fix this, we just run it via `yarn test` (which includes the config). We already depend on Yarn for development anyway. * Add yarn test-prod to run Jest with production environment * Actually flip the production tests to run in prod environment This produces a bunch of errors: Test Suites: 64 failed, 58 passed, 122 total Tests: 740 failed, 26 skipped, 1809 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Ignore expectDev() calls in production Down from 740 to 175 failed. Test Suites: 44 failed, 78 passed, 122 total Tests: 175 failed, 26 skipped, 2374 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Decode errors so tests can assert on their messages Down from 175 to 129. Test Suites: 33 failed, 89 passed, 122 total Tests: 129 failed, 1029 skipped, 1417 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Remove ReactDOMProduction-test There is no need for it now. The only test that was special is moved into ReactDOM-test. * Remove production switches from ReactErrorUtils The tests now run in production in a separate pass. * Add and use spyOnDev() for warnings This ensures that by default we expect no warnings in production bundles. If the warning *is* expected, use the regular spyOn() method. This currently breaks all expectDev() assertions without __DEV__ blocks so we go back to: Test Suites: 56 failed, 65 passed, 121 total Tests: 379 failed, 1029 skipped, 1148 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Replace expectDev() with expect() in __DEV__ blocks We started using spyOnDev() for console warnings to ensure we don't *expect* them to occur in production. As a consequence, expectDev() assertions on console.error.calls fail because console.error.calls doesn't exist. This is actually good because it would help catch accidental warnings in production. To solve this, we are getting rid of expectDev() altogether, and instead introduce explicit expectation branches. We'd need them anyway for testing intentional behavior differences. This commit replaces all expectDev() calls with expect() calls in __DEV__ blocks. It also removes a few unnecessary expect() checks that no warnings were produced (by also removing the corresponding spyOnDev() calls). Some DEV-only assertions used plain expect(). Those were also moved into __DEV__ blocks. ReactFiberErrorLogger was special because it console.error()'s in production too. So in that case I intentionally used spyOn() instead of spyOnDev(), and added extra assertions. This gets us down to: Test Suites: 21 failed, 100 passed, 121 total Tests: 72 failed, 26 skipped, 2458 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Enable User Timing API for production testing We could've disabled it, but seems like a good idea to test since we use it at FB. * Test for explicit Object.freeze() differences between PROD and DEV This is one of the few places where DEV and PROD behavior differs for performance reasons. Now we explicitly test both branches. * Run Jest via "yarn test" on CI * Remove unused variable * Assert different error messages * Fix error handling tests This logic is really complicated because of the global ReactFiberErrorLogger mock. I understand it now, so I added TODOs for later. It can be much simpler if we change the rest of the tests that assert uncaught errors to also assert they are logged as warnings. Which mirrors what happens in practice anyway. * Fix more assertions * Change tests to document the DEV/PROD difference for state invariant It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as facebook/react#11618. * Remove unnecessary split between DEV/PROD ref tests * Fix more test message assertions * Make validateDOMNesting tests DEV-only * Fix error message assertions * Document existing DEV/PROD message difference (possible bug) * Change mocking assertions to be DEV-only * Fix the error code test * Fix more error message assertions * Fix the last failing test due to known issue * Run production tests on CI * Unify configuration * Fix coverage script * Remove expectDev from eslintrc * Run everything in band We used to before, too. I just forgot to add the arguments after deleting the script.
This was referenced Mar 15, 2021
This was referenced Nov 5, 2022
renawolford6
added a commit
to renawolford6/react-shallow-renderer
that referenced
this issue
Nov 10, 2022
* Move Jest setup files to /dev/ subdirectory * Clone Jest /dev/ files into /prod/ * Move shared code into scripts/jest * Move Jest config into the scripts folder * Fix the equivalence test It fails because the config is now passed to Jest explicitly. But the test doesn't know about the config. To fix this, we just run it via `yarn test` (which includes the config). We already depend on Yarn for development anyway. * Add yarn test-prod to run Jest with production environment * Actually flip the production tests to run in prod environment This produces a bunch of errors: Test Suites: 64 failed, 58 passed, 122 total Tests: 740 failed, 26 skipped, 1809 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Ignore expectDev() calls in production Down from 740 to 175 failed. Test Suites: 44 failed, 78 passed, 122 total Tests: 175 failed, 26 skipped, 2374 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Decode errors so tests can assert on their messages Down from 175 to 129. Test Suites: 33 failed, 89 passed, 122 total Tests: 129 failed, 1029 skipped, 1417 passed, 2575 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Remove ReactDOMProduction-test There is no need for it now. The only test that was special is moved into ReactDOM-test. * Remove production switches from ReactErrorUtils The tests now run in production in a separate pass. * Add and use spyOnDev() for warnings This ensures that by default we expect no warnings in production bundles. If the warning *is* expected, use the regular spyOn() method. This currently breaks all expectDev() assertions without __DEV__ blocks so we go back to: Test Suites: 56 failed, 65 passed, 121 total Tests: 379 failed, 1029 skipped, 1148 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Replace expectDev() with expect() in __DEV__ blocks We started using spyOnDev() for console warnings to ensure we don't *expect* them to occur in production. As a consequence, expectDev() assertions on console.error.calls fail because console.error.calls doesn't exist. This is actually good because it would help catch accidental warnings in production. To solve this, we are getting rid of expectDev() altogether, and instead introduce explicit expectation branches. We'd need them anyway for testing intentional behavior differences. This commit replaces all expectDev() calls with expect() calls in __DEV__ blocks. It also removes a few unnecessary expect() checks that no warnings were produced (by also removing the corresponding spyOnDev() calls). Some DEV-only assertions used plain expect(). Those were also moved into __DEV__ blocks. ReactFiberErrorLogger was special because it console.error()'s in production too. So in that case I intentionally used spyOn() instead of spyOnDev(), and added extra assertions. This gets us down to: Test Suites: 21 failed, 100 passed, 121 total Tests: 72 failed, 26 skipped, 2458 passed, 2556 total Snapshots: 16 failed, 4 passed, 20 total * Enable User Timing API for production testing We could've disabled it, but seems like a good idea to test since we use it at FB. * Test for explicit Object.freeze() differences between PROD and DEV This is one of the few places where DEV and PROD behavior differs for performance reasons. Now we explicitly test both branches. * Run Jest via "yarn test" on CI * Remove unused variable * Assert different error messages * Fix error handling tests This logic is really complicated because of the global ReactFiberErrorLogger mock. I understand it now, so I added TODOs for later. It can be much simpler if we change the rest of the tests that assert uncaught errors to also assert they are logged as warnings. Which mirrors what happens in practice anyway. * Fix more assertions * Change tests to document the DEV/PROD difference for state invariant It is very likely unintentional but I don't want to change behavior in this PR. Filed a follow up as facebook/react#11618. * Remove unnecessary split between DEV/PROD ref tests * Fix more test message assertions * Make validateDOMNesting tests DEV-only * Fix error message assertions * Document existing DEV/PROD message difference (possible bug) * Change mocking assertions to be DEV-only * Fix the error code test * Fix more error message assertions * Fix the last failing test due to known issue * Run production tests on CI * Unify configuration * Fix coverage script * Remove expectDev from eslintrc * Run everything in band We used to before, too. I just forgot to add the arguments after deleting the script.
This was referenced Dec 25, 2022
This was referenced Nov 27, 2023
This was referenced May 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Follow up from #11616.
Here's one I found. These two invariants:
react/packages/react-reconciler/src/ReactFiberClassComponent.js
Lines 330 to 343 in 7e71273
are in a function that's behind a DEV block:
react/packages/react-reconciler/src/ReactFiberClassComponent.js
Lines 447 to 449 in 7e71273
I don't think this is intentional, but need to verify.
There may be more. I'll use this issue to track while #11616 preserves existing behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: