-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
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: fix arguments ordering for assertions to match the docs #23575
Conversation
fixtures.path('a.js').toLowerCase(), | ||
require.resolve(fixtures.path('a')).toLowerCase()); | ||
require.resolve(fixtures.path('a')).toLowerCase(), | ||
fixtures.path('a.js').toLowerCase()); |
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.
looks like the above 2 asserts are identical. Not an issue of this PR, but does any one know whether it is intentional vs. accidental?
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.
good catch @gireeshpunathil, that change was introduced in 91a465c#diff-a00e02f229f04b6262da068e8df33ed5 and the version before that is b1506f7#diff-a00e02f229f04b6262da068e8df33ed5
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.
Yup, one of them can be removed.
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.
updated and rebased 👍
fixtures.path('a.js').toLowerCase(), | ||
require.resolve(fixtures.path('a')).toLowerCase()); | ||
require.resolve(fixtures.path('a')).toLowerCase(), | ||
fixtures.path('a.js').toLowerCase()); |
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.
Yup, one of them can be removed.
PR-URL: nodejs#23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Not sure what happened here, but there seem to be some odd commits in here … @lirantal Could you rebase this against |
@addaleax looks like this PR has already landed in c596bcc#diff-a00e02f229f04b6262da068e8df33ed5 |
PR-URL: #23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #23575 Reviewed-By: Hitesh Kanwathirtha <digitalinfinity@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Expected
The test should make use of
strictEqual()
according to the docs with the first value being theactual
, and second being theexpected
Actual
The use of
strictEqual()
in the test uses the parameters backwardsChecklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes