-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.2k
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
Promises/better unhandled rejection message #17158
Closed
MadaraUchiha
wants to merge
6
commits into
nodejs:master
from
MadaraUchiha:promises/better-unhandled-rejection-message
Closed
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a29fe91
Improved unhandled rejection message
MadaraUchiha ba4adc5
Make tests pass
MadaraUchiha ab45e60
Wrap reason with unsafeToString() if it's a string
MadaraUchiha bf06851
Add test for checking warnings about rejected numbers.
MadaraUchiha 9d29f0c
Fix failing symbol rejection test.
MadaraUchiha 481c7f1
Make test lines wrap at 80 characters or less.
MadaraUchiha File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
13
test/parallel/test-promises-unhandled-symbol-rejections.js
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -12,18 +12,35 @@ let b = 0; | |
process.on('warning', common.mustCall((warning) => { | ||
switch (b++) { | ||
case 0: | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning'); | ||
assert(/Unhandled promise rejection/.test(warning.message)); | ||
// String rejection error displayed | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.message, 'This was rejected'); | ||
break; | ||
case 1: | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'DeprecationWarning'); | ||
// Warning about rejection not being handled (will be next tick) | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning'); | ||
assert(/Unhandled promise rejection/.test(warning.message), 'Expected warning message to contain "Unhandled promise rejection" but did not. Had "' + warning.message + '" instead.'); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. these lines need to be line-wrapped at <= 80 chars There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How come |
||
break; | ||
case 2: | ||
// One time deprecation warning, first unhandled rejection | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'DeprecationWarning'); | ||
break; | ||
case 3: | ||
// Number rejection error displayed. Note it's been stringified | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.message, '42'); | ||
break; | ||
case 4: | ||
// Unhandled rejection warning (won't be handled next tick) | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning'); | ||
assert(/Unhandled promise rejection/.test(warning.message), 'Expected warning message to contain "Unhandled promise rejection" but did not. Had "' + warning.message + '" instead.'); | ||
break; | ||
case 5: | ||
// Rejection handled asynchronously. | ||
assert.strictEqual(warning.name, 'PromiseRejectionHandledWarning'); | ||
assert(/Promise rejection was handled asynchronously/ | ||
.test(warning.message)); | ||
} | ||
}, 3)); | ||
}, 6)); | ||
|
||
const p = Promise.reject('This was rejected'); | ||
setImmediate(common.mustCall(() => p.catch(() => {}))); | ||
const p = Promise.reject('This was rejected'); // Reject with a string | ||
setImmediate(common.mustCall(() => p.catch(() => { }))); | ||
Promise.reject(42); // Reject with a number |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I guess the only downfall to doing it this way is it won't include any additional properties added on to the Error object. Any reason to do this vs using
util.inspect()
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just that I wasn't aware of
util.inspect()
. I went with what the rest of the code did in the same function.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Namely, Node doesn't show this information for synchronous errors: