test: complete unified test runner #2748
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
nbbeeken
force-pushed
the
NODE-2287/UnifiedTestFormat
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ebf1ed9 to
c2b2b59
Compare
Completes the unified runner by passing all the poc spec tests. NODE-2287
nbbeeken
force-pushed
the
NODE-2287/UnifiedTestFormat
branch
from
b7e1d05 to
dd4bc07
Compare
ljhaywar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Completes the unified runner by passing all the poc spec tests.
NODE-2287
Notes
There's some additional work in here that I'm happy to break out into its own ticket, but it came up in debugging:
{ writeConcern: undefined }and that would overwrite the client options that were supposed to be inherited. I can go back and fix the test to not defined a key if the value is undefined but maybe this is unexpected enough to fix in driver, so here I used??and explicit fetching of the options to resolve the correct valueclient.s.optionswhich putclient[kOptions]andclient.optionsout of sync. There is also an opportunity for theclient.s.WC/RP/RCvalues to be out of sync withclient[kOptions]. Changing these to getters gives us one source of truth for client options.