-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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_runner: ensure test watcher picks up new test files #54225
Conversation
Review requested:
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #54225 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.33% 87.31% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 649 649
Lines 182622 182638 +16
Branches 35037 35040 +3
==========================================
- Hits 159494 159479 -15
- Misses 16393 16418 +25
- Partials 6735 6741 +6
|
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.
Thanks for contributing! I've left a few notes and questions.
You'll also need to add a test to https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/test/parallel/test-runner-run-watch.mjs.
@cjihrig PTAL |
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 work!
* if (this.#mode !== 'filter') { | ||
* return; | ||
* } | ||
*/ |
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.
Which PR introduced this? Can you ping the original author?
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.
If I'm not mistaken, this change is from @MoLow
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.
I'm not sure what to make of this change 😄
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.
I think it would be great to know if that logic was there for a specific reason. Removing it didn't disrupt any tests.
I added the comment just to ensure that the change didn’t go unnoticed.
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.
Il need to get back from vacation to be in front of a computer to be sure of my answer, but using a single watcher (i.e all mode is probably more efficient and peformant) so creating additional watchers when they are not needed just adds more overhead that is unneeded
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.
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.
I agree with this.
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.
lgtm
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.
LGTM. It would be good to get @MoLow's review on this though.
will start CI again as soon as this PR lands (just make sure there are no false positive test results) thanks for your patient 🙏 |
I've seen that we now have conflicts, gonna fix them ASAP 🚀 |
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.
This adds a new option to run()
, so it needs to have docs.
f848750
to
17b7ce1
Compare
@jakecastelli, I had to rebase again cause of conflicts 🚀 |
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.
Great work
@cjihrig, if this PR lands, I'll start working on it 😁 |
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.
lgtm
Landed in dcf50f1 |
@pmarchini no need to open an issue. |
PR-URL: #54225 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jake Yuesong Li <jake.yuesong@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #54225 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jake Yuesong Li <jake.yuesong@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #54225 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jake Yuesong Li <jake.yuesong@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#54225 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Jake Yuesong Li <jake.yuesong@gmail.com>
This is the initial implementation addressing issue #53077.
I've noticed the issue has been inactive for a while, so I attempted to resolve it by following the provided suggestions.
While this solution seems to work, I'm not entirely satisfied with the implementation.