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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

swap arguments in strictEqual() and comment the third argument (test-timers) #21660

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

swap arguments in strictEqual() and comment the third argument (test-timers) #21660

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3a4c8fa
test: swap arguments in strictEqual() and comment the third argument
sohailrajdev97 Jul 4, 2018
c52205e
better comment message
sohailrajdev97 Jul 5, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
29 changes: 15 additions & 14 deletions test/pummel/test-timers.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ let interval_count = 0;
clearTimeout(null);
clearInterval(null);

assert.strictEqual(true, setTimeout instanceof Function);
assert.strictEqual(setTimeout instanceof Function, true);
Copy link
Member

@ChALkeR ChALkeR Jul 4, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not assert.ok? And in some other places.
/cc @Trott — do we have a reason for a strict check here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

assert.ok() would be fine here of course, but I'm not terribly bothered by the strict check either.

There are 5 other files in our test suite that use strictEqual() for an instanceof check. If there is consensus that changing it to assert.ok() would be better, I'd rather change them all at once in a separate PR and add a lint rule.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, that should not block this PR, just asking. 😃

const starttime = new Date();
setTimeout(common.mustCall(function() {
const endtime = new Date();
Expand All @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ setTimeout(common.mustCall(function() {
assert.ok(diff > 0);
console.error(`diff: ${diff}`);

assert.strictEqual(true, 1000 - WINDOW < diff && diff < 1000 + WINDOW);
assert.strictEqual(1000 - WINDOW < diff && diff < 1000 + WINDOW, true);
}), 1000);

// this timer shouldn't execute
Expand All @@ -57,23 +57,23 @@ setInterval(function() {

const t = interval_count * 1000;

assert.strictEqual(true, t - WINDOW < diff && diff < t + WINDOW);
assert.strictEqual(t - WINDOW < diff && diff < t + WINDOW, true);

assert.strictEqual(true, interval_count <= 3);
assert.strictEqual(interval_count <= 3, true);
if (interval_count === 3)
clearInterval(this);
}, 1000);


// Single param:
setTimeout(function(param) {
assert.strictEqual('test param', param);
assert.strictEqual(param, 'test param');
}, 1000, 'test param');

let interval_count2 = 0;
setInterval(function(param) {
++interval_count2;
assert.strictEqual('test param', param);
assert.strictEqual(param, 'test param');

if (interval_count2 === 3)
clearInterval(this);
Expand All @@ -82,15 +82,15 @@ setInterval(function(param) {

// Multiple param
setTimeout(function(param1, param2) {
assert.strictEqual('param1', param1);
assert.strictEqual('param2', param2);
assert.strictEqual(param1, 'param1');
assert.strictEqual(param2, 'param2');
}, 1000, 'param1', 'param2');

let interval_count3 = 0;
setInterval(function(param1, param2) {
++interval_count3;
assert.strictEqual('param1', param1);
assert.strictEqual('param2', param2);
assert.strictEqual(param1, 'param1');
assert.strictEqual(param2, 'param2');

if (interval_count3 === 3)
clearInterval(this);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -120,8 +120,9 @@ clearTimeout(y);


process.on('exit', function() {
assert.strictEqual(3, interval_count);
assert.strictEqual(11, count4);
assert.strictEqual(0, expectedTimeouts,
'clearTimeout cleared too many timeouts');
assert.strictEqual(interval_count, 3);
assert.strictEqual(count4, 11);

// clearTimeout cleared too many timeouts
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: Now that I'm looking at it, perhaps the comment might better as:

// Check that the correct number of timers ran.

assert.strictEqual(expectedTimeouts, 0);
});