test: reduce string concatenations #12735

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T22:42:15Z

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

test

This is not an exhaustive deliverance from all string concatenations: if a result looked too ugly and messy, I've abstained to change, so some concatenations still remain. I am not sure if we should to add prefer-template: error to test .eslintrc.yaml, so I've also abstained from proposing, but let me know if this is discussable.

Concerning reviews: #12735 (comment)

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T22:52:16Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/7739/

refack · 2017-04-28T22:56:52Z

Will you be able to activate any eslint rules after this?

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T23:02:55Z

@refack There are still ~20 cases like these ones I've abstained to change, at least till I think up some equally readable solutions. But these ones can be addressed with ESLint disabling comments. So prefer-template: error can be added to the test .eslintrc.yaml with a very little churn after this PR.

refack · 2017-04-28T23:20:32Z

You should add those (rule and comment exceptions) as it would provide extra motivation for this PR.
I'm a big believer better code, but there is code-churn and git history to consider. So IMHO adding an eslint rule will tip the scales in favor of this PR.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T23:24:00Z

I could do this if there is a minimal consensus if we should restrict this aspect from now on. Maybe some liberality is preferred here by the other collaborators)

refack · 2017-04-28T23:25:35Z

P.S. for things like these ones, I would do a multiline `` with replace

`PUT /this HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: text/plain
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

4
ping
0
`.replace(/\r|\n|\r\n/g, '\r\n')

refack · 2017-04-28T23:27:41Z

I could do this if there is a minimal consensus if we should restrict this aspect from now on. Maybe some liberality is preferred here by the other collaborators)

Yes, this is only my opinion and I actually want to +1

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T23:31:51Z

@refack I've considered this way, but there are nits here concerning indentation, leading/trailing returns and aligning. There are solutions, and maybe some util formatting function can be added to common.js lib, but this also may need to be discussed.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-28T23:35:35Z

@refack By the way, .replace(/\r|\n|\r\n/, '\r\n') may safely be just .replace(/\n/g, '\r\n'), as per spec in multiline template literals can only be \n regardless of OS, IIRC.

refack · 2017-04-29T00:40:23Z

@vsemozhetbyt I love 2ality 🥇
As for "weird" situations, just exclude them with comments...

benjamingr · 2017-04-29T13:13:35Z

I like the change but it's huge which makes it impractical to actually review. I went through the first 20-30 and they look good - but I don't feel comfortable with landing this unless someone goes through all changed content.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-29T13:34:35Z

Maybe we can divide: a reviewer can write down the last file reviewed, next reviewer can start from the next file.

refack

Almost went over all.
A few nits, some suggestions, and request to change path manipulation to path.join

refack · 2017-04-29T14:58:22Z

test/debugger/helper-debugger-repl.js

@@ -34,11 +34,11 @@ let quit;

 function startDebugger(scriptToDebug) {
  scriptToDebug = process.env.NODE_DEBUGGER_TEST_SCRIPT ||
-                  common.fixturesDir + '/' + scriptToDebug;
+                  `${common.fixturesDir}/${scriptToDebug}`;


This should be path.join

There are many such things in the tests. Should we address them in this PR?

Separate PR is likely safer.

I don't think a path.join is important here, node modules always use / (so it's not an OS compatibility concern). The main advantage of path.join is that it abstracts joining complex paths, for concatenating two strings / should be fine.

That said, if this view is contested - we can just leave it as is in the PR.

IMHO if we're touching this, so might as well "fix" it. There are multiple path concatenations done as strings, I feel they should all be changed, as path.join is semantically different, even if string concat works.

It would be ~300 re-editions in the PR...

Your call @vsemozhetbyt if you have the energy do it. I'll review it.
If you say not this PR I'll retract those comments.

I am in doubt if there is a minimum consensus for this. If there are 2-3 +1 and no strong -1, I can try to refactor with path.join().

Like James and Benjamin, I’m fine with leaving this as-is. Leaving path.join() refactors for a later PR sounds good to me. (If there’s consensus they should happen.)

Yep, seems like a job for a separate PR.

refack · 2017-04-29T15:13:50Z

test/inspector/inspector-helper.js

-      assert(message['result'], JSON.stringify(message) + ' (response to ' +
-             JSON.stringify(this.messages_[id]) + ')');
+      assert(message['result'], `${JSON.stringify(message)} (response to ${
+                                   JSON.stringify(this.messages_[id])})`);


+0
personally I'd rather you define as vars then do this trick

const msg_json = JSON.stringify(message); const id_json = JSON.stringify(this.messages_[id]); assert(message['result'], `${msg_json} (response to ${id_json})`);

I've created some new variables if this improved many places per file. But I also tried not to be too creative to not overload the diff.

not a big fan of the trick... And otherwise you can't fit it in one line...

+1 to @refack's suggestion, I think it definitely improves the readability.

refack · 2017-04-29T15:22:09Z

test/inspector/inspector-helper.js

-    assert(!message['error'], JSON.stringify(message) + ' (replying to ' +
-           JSON.stringify(this.messages_[id]) + ')');
+    assert(!message['error'], `${JSON.stringify(message)} (replying to ${
+                                 JSON.stringify(this.messages_[id])})`);


refack · 2017-04-29T15:23:28Z

test/inspector/inspector-helper.js

@@ -215,10 +215,10 @@ TestSession.prototype.sendInspectorCommands = function(commands) {
      timeoutId = setTimeout(() => {
        let s = '';
        for (const id in this.messages_) {
-          s += id + ', ';
+          s += `${id}, `;


const s = this.messages_.map(m => m.id).join(', ');

The same: I would abstain from refactoring too deep: this will make reviewing and testing a lot more difficult.

Then I say, leave it as is, comment with TODO

+1 to @refack's suggestion again. While you're here you might as well simplify, and it's a simple atomic change (so not too painful to review).

refack · 2017-04-29T15:24:00Z

test/inspector/inspector-helper.js

-        assert.fail('Messages without response: ' +
-                    s.substring(0, s.length - 2));
+        assert.fail(
+          `Messages without response: ${s.substring(0, s.length - 2)}`);


If using map, no need for substring

refack · 2017-04-29T15:32:42Z

test/parallel/test-buffer-alloc.js

+                           expected.slice(120, 180)} \n${
+                           expected.slice(180, 240)} \n${
+                           expected.slice(240, 300)}\n${
+                           expected.slice(300, 360)}\n`;


-1
IMHO doesn't improve readability.
Maybe:

const expectedWhite = `${expected.slice(0, 60)}\u0020 ${expected.slice(60, 120)}\u0020 ${expected.slice(120, 180)}\u0020 ${expected.slice(180, 240)}\u0020 ${expected.slice(240, 300)} ${expected.slice(300, 360)} `;

This may not be linted (indents).

Definitely not a fan of multiline string literals. An array with a join might be an even better option.

const expectedWrite = [ expected.slice(0, 60), expected.slice(60, 120), expected.slice(120, 180), expected.slice(180, 240), expected.slice(240, 300), expected.slice(300, 360) ].join(' \n') + '/n';

refack · 2017-04-29T15:32:54Z

test/parallel/test-buffer-alloc.js

+                             expected.slice(120, 180)} \x00${
+                             expected.slice(180, 240)} \x98${
+                             expected.slice(240, 300)}\x03${
+                             expected.slice(300, 360)}`;


refack · 2017-04-29T15:51:12Z

test/parallel/test-domain-with-abort-on-uncaught-exception.js

-      useTryCatchOpt
-    ].join(' ');
+    cmdToExec += `${process.argv[0]} ${cmdLineOption ? cmdLineOption : ''} ${
+      process.argv[1]} child ${throwInDomainErrHandlerOpt} ${useTryCatchOpt}`;

    const child = exec(cmdToExec);


+-0
IMHO change the whole assembly to [].push(x).join(' ')

refack · 2017-04-29T15:57:18Z

test/parallel/test-fs-realpath.js

  [
-    [entry, '../' + common.tmpDirName + '/cycles/root.js']
+    [entry, `../${common.tmpDirName}/cycles/root.js`]
  ].forEach(function(t) {


path.join

refack · 2017-04-29T15:58:32Z

test/parallel/test-fs-stream-double-close.js

-test3(fs.createWriteStream(common.tmpDir + '/dummy3'));
+test1(fs.createWriteStream(`${common.tmpDir}/dummy1`));
+test2(fs.createWriteStream(`${common.tmpDir}/dummy2`));
+test3(fs.createWriteStream(`${common.tmpDir}/dummy3`));



my progress marker

refack · 2017-04-29T16:01:28Z

That's a huge PR indeed

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-29T16:51:50Z

I've reverted changes in the test/parallel/test-buffer-alloc.js and resolved conflicts.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-29T16:58:22Z

I don't know what to do. To divide this PR in small ones, I lack criterions (by files number? by tests topics? other?). And I understand that other collaborators may not have my 2 free days to review all the changes (diff is very slow in addition). Feel free to say to close, I shall not consider this as a waste of time, this was a useful experience in many respects for me)

refack · 2017-04-29T17:31:12Z

I don't know what to do. To divide this PR in small ones, I lack criterions (by files number? by tests topics? other?). And I understand that other collaborators may not have my 2 free days to review all the changes (diff is very slow in addition). Feel free to say to close, I shall not consider this as a waste of time, this was a useful experience in many respects for me)

IMHO Keep it. It's done, it's good. I'll go over it all.

refack · 2017-04-29T17:40:53Z

Removed requests to hoist stuff to common.js, agree that that's a different PR.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-04-30T12:22:27Z

O my) Conflicts resolved. New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/7758/

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-05-05T12:25:57Z

Some new conflicts resolved. Hopefully, the last CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/7891/

PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-05-05T14:42:19Z

Landed in 8b76c3e

Sorry for all the conflicts it may cause...

PR-URL: nodejs#12735 Refs: nodejs#12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

gibfahn · 2017-06-18T23:41:14Z

@vsemozhetbyt do you have the patience to backport this to v6.x-staging? If yes please follow the guide and raise a backport PR, if no let me know or add the dont-land-on label.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-06-18T23:50:35Z

@gibfahn I can try, but will anybody have the time to review?

gibfahn · 2017-06-18T23:55:55Z

@gibfahn I can try, but will anybody have the time to review?

If you raise the PR I promise to review 😁 . Feel free to assign it to me.

vsemozhetbyt · 2017-06-21T03:22:48Z

@gibfahn Hopefully backported: #13835

PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

Backport-PR-URL: #13835 PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added addons Issues and PRs related to native addons. debugger inspector Issues and PRs related to the V8 inspector protocol test Issues and PRs related to the tests. labels Apr 28, 2017

vsemozhetbyt added refactor to ES6+ and removed addons Issues and PRs related to native addons. debugger inspector Issues and PRs related to the V8 inspector protocol labels Apr 28, 2017

refack suggested changes Apr 29, 2017

View reviewed changes

refack mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2017

doc: adding "rules of thumb" #12744

Closed

2 tasks

vsemozhetbyt added 12 commits May 5, 2017 15:19

fixup: parallel/http-get-pipeline-problem – http-write-empty-string

2b40253

fixup: parallel/https* – https-drain

fb39a61

fixup: parallel/https-eof-for-eom – https-truncate

92579bb

fixup: parallel/intl* – net*

45fac06

fixup: parallel/next-tick* – regress*

7264499

fixup: parallel/repl* – spawn*

1431f9f

fixup: parallel/stdin* – timers*

7061bf2

fixup: parallel/tls* – tls-connect*

858e10d

fixup: parallel/tls-delayed* – tls-invoke-queued

32a0b99

fixup: parallel/tls-js-stream – tls-securepair*

73dd5cb

fixup: parallel/tls-server* – tls-wrap-timeout

05b21d5

fixup: parallel/url* – zlib*

686b12b

vsemozhetbyt added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2017

test: reduce string concatenations

8b76c3e

PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

vsemozhetbyt closed this May 5, 2017

vsemozhetbyt deleted the test-templates branch May 5, 2017 14:42

anchnk pushed a commit to anchnk/node that referenced this pull request May 6, 2017

test: reduce string concatenations

50d2298

PR-URL: nodejs#12735 Refs: nodejs#12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

jasnell mentioned this pull request May 11, 2017

8.0.0 Release Proposal #12220

Closed

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2017

Auditing for 6.11.1 nodejs/Release#230

Closed

3 tasks

gibfahn added the backport-requested-v6.x label Jun 18, 2017

vsemozhetbyt mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2017

(v6.x backport) test: reduce string concatenations #13835

Closed

3 tasks

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2017

test: reduce string concatenations

0dfb19d

PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2017

test: reduce string concatenations

35b55bf

Backport-PR-URL: #13835 PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2017

test: reduce string concatenations

5b74e63

Backport-PR-URL: #13835 PR-URL: #12735 Refs: #12455 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <gibfahn@gmail.com>

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2017

v6.11.2 proposal #14356

Merged

test: reduce string concatenations #12735

test: reduce string concatenations #12735

Conversation

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 • edited Loading

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017

refack commented Apr 28, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 • edited Loading

refack commented Apr 28, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017

refack commented Apr 28, 2017 • edited Loading

refack commented Apr 28, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 • edited Loading

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 • edited Loading

refack commented Apr 29, 2017

benjamingr commented Apr 29, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 29, 2017

refack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack Apr 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vsemozhetbyt Apr 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Apr 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack Apr 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

refack commented Apr 29, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 29, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 29, 2017 • edited Loading

refack commented Apr 29, 2017

refack commented Apr 29, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 30, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented May 5, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented May 5, 2017

gibfahn commented Jun 18, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Jun 18, 2017

gibfahn commented Jun 18, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Jun 21, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

refack commented Apr 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading

refack Apr 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

vsemozhetbyt Apr 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jasnell Apr 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

refack Apr 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

vsemozhetbyt commented Apr 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading