Skip to content
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

test: improve test-child-process-fork-and-spawn #10273

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

edsadr
Copy link
Member

@edsadr edsadr commented Dec 15, 2016

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
  • use const instead of var for required modules
  • use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added test Issues and PRs related to the tests. lts-watch-v6.x labels Dec 15, 2016
Copy link
Member

@santigimeno santigimeno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with a suggestion

@@ -20,6 +20,6 @@ switch (process.argv[2] || '') {
}

function checkExit(statusCode) {
assert.equal(statusCode, 0);
assert.strictEqual(statusCode, 0);
process.nextTick(process.exit);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you can remove the process.nextTick(process.exit);

@santigimeno
Copy link
Member

Copy link
Contributor

@evanlucas evanlucas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with @santigimeno's suggestion

@edsadr
Copy link
Member Author

edsadr commented Dec 15, 2016

Implemented @santigimeno suggestion, @lpinca could you please set the CI again?

@lpinca
Copy link
Member

lpinca commented Dec 15, 2016

Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The changes LGTM. Would you mind also updating the assert(0); to use common.fail()?

* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick
@edsadr
Copy link
Member Author

edsadr commented Dec 17, 2016

@cjihrig just changed assert(0) ... need a new CI, please

@JungMinu
Copy link
Member

Copy link
Member

@JungMinu JungMinu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@italoacasas
Copy link
Contributor

Landed 8b367c5

italoacasas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 19, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
cjihrig pushed a commit to cjihrig/node that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: nodejs#10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
@italoacasas italoacasas mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2016
cjihrig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2017
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2017
* use const instead of var for required modules
* use assert.strictEqual instead of assert.equal
* remove unnecessary process.nextTick

PR-URL: #10273
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Minwoo Jung <jmwsoft@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Italo A. Casas <me@italoacasas.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants