util: adding a unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method #16305

akaila · 2017-10-18T21:04:48Z

Added a unit test that verifies assertion if util.deprecate is called with a non-string code parameter.

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)

util.deprecate

trivikr

LGTM, just a nit

trivikr · 2017-10-18T21:07:24Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+  common.expectsError(
+    () => {
+      util.deprecate(() => {}, "message", 123);
+    },


nit: There's only one statement inside the function.
This can be converted to:

() => util.deprecate(() => {}, "message", 123)

Done and updated

apapirovski

Thanks for contributing @akaila! This looks well on the way but there are a few nits that could be updated.

Also, I would recommend running the JS linter (make lint-js) and fixing any problematic things that it flags. See our contributing guide for more info: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#the-process-of-making-changes

Please let me know if any of the info in there is unclear or doesn't work for you.

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T21:08:45Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+"use strict";


Please use single quotes for strings throughout.

Ah my local workspace had prettier enabled which I have disabled now. Updated PR.
Thanks !

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T21:09:06Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+[1, true, false, null, {}].forEach(notString => {
+  common.expectsError(
+    () => {
+      util.deprecate(() => {}, "message", 123);


I think 123 was meant to be notString.

Right. Fixed.

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T21:09:59Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+    {
+      code: "ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE",
+      type: global.TypeError,
+      message: `The "code" argument must be of type string`


This can be a plain single-quoted string instead of a template string.

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T21:10:11Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+    },
+    {
+      code: "ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE",
+      type: global.TypeError,


Nit: please remove the global. part.

apapirovski

LGTM. Thank you!

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T22:11:07Z

@akaila To make it easier to land this, you could also update your commit message to be 50 chars or less. If you need to provide more info, you can put in two new lines and then write the rest of it. See the specs for valid commit messages here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-guidelines

Or whoever lands this can also do it later. :)

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T11:13:38Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10852/

apapirovski

Looks like the linter caught one more issue. If you could fix that and potentially adjust the commit message as per above, that would be amazing! Thanks!

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T12:20:49Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+const common = require('../common');
+const util = require('util');
+
+[1, true, false, null, {}].forEach(notString => {


Caught by linter: this needs parens around notString to be (notString).

@akaila You can run linter just for Javascript files using make lint-js

Ok trying now.

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T12:21:23Z

test/parallel/test-util-deprecate-invalid-code.js

+const util = require('util');
+
+[1, true, false, null, {}].forEach(notString => {
+  common.expectsError(() => util.deprecate(() => { }, 'message', notString), {


Nit: would you mind removing the extra space inside { }? Thanks!

Done and I ran linter to ensure things look ok:

make lint-js
Running JS linter...
./node tools/eslint/bin/eslint.js --cache --rulesdir=tools/eslint-rules --ext=.js,.mjs,.md
benchmark doc lib test tools

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T17:06:12Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10858/

trivikr · 2017-10-19T17:41:56Z

About update of diff in PR taking time, I've logged the issue with Github at isaacs/github#1098

akaila · 2017-10-19T17:53:06Z

Looking at the output, no idea why build should fail:
>> Job status: [node-test-commit-aix] the 'build only if scm changes' feature is disabled.
Starting build job node-test-commit-aix.
Finished Build : #12781 of Job : node-test-linter with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #9555 of Job : node-test-commit-linuxone with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #12380 of Job : node-test-commit-plinux with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #13317 of Job : node-test-commit-osx with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #12380 of Job : node-test-commit-smartos with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #11848 of Job : node-test-commit-linux-fips with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #11864 of Job : node-test-commit-arm-fanned with status : SUCCESS
Finished Build : #12508 of Job : node-test-commit-freebsd with status : FAILURE
Finished Build : #12678 of Job : node-test-commit-windows-fanned with status : UNSTABLE
Finished Build : #13357 of Job : node-test-commit-linux with status : FAILURE
Finished Build : #9507 of Job : node-test-commit-aix with status : SUCCESS
Notifying upstream projects of job completion
Finished: FAILURE

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T17:56:18Z

CI was fine, we just have some failing tests at the moment which are being fixed elsewhere.

akaila · 2017-10-19T18:00:16Z

I see. Do you have to override the failure to have it merge into master? Sorry if I am asking too many questions being a newbie :)

apapirovski · 2017-10-19T18:02:46Z

@akaila Not at all, that's what we're here for :) Merging is just at the discretion of collaborators. As long as a pull request is approved (and not a single collaborator objects) and no CI failures are related to it, it can be merged. (Oh and at least 48 hours have to pass.)

You can read more about the process here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#step-10-landing (the whole doc is pretty useful in general)

Test for invalid argument types passed to code on util.deprecate. PR-URL: #16305 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

apapirovski · 2017-10-22T15:36:22Z

Landed in fe8297c

@akaila Congrats on becoming a Contributor!

akaila · 2017-10-22T16:51:15Z

Thanks !

MylesBorins · 2017-10-23T22:23:19Z

The new tests are failing on 8.x

Would someone be willing to manually backport?

akaila · 2017-10-24T05:43:33Z

What does backport mean here? I tested this on current master (8.7 I believe) and it passed. If you can give me an example of backport, I can definitely do it.
Thanks

trivikr · 2017-10-24T05:47:02Z

Backporting instructions are given at https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/e517bc97d48da199e5e3af858e19173a209063c4/doc/guides/backporting-to-release-lines.md

akaila · 2017-10-24T06:20:49Z

Added backport PR. Please approve

MylesBorins · 2017-10-24T18:11:35Z

in retrospect this PR requires changes to using error codes that we cannot backport to 8.x as they are semver major. I am marking as don't land

Test for invalid argument types passed to code on util.deprecate. PR-URL: nodejs/node#16305 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

Test for invalid argument types passed to code on util.deprecate. PR-URL: #16305 Backport-PR-URL: #16430 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

Test for invalid argument types passed to code on util.deprecate. PR-URL: nodejs/node#16305 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Oct 18, 2017

trivikr approved these changes Oct 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

apapirovski reviewed Oct 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

apapirovski approved these changes Oct 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

mscdex added the util Issues and PRs related to the built-in util module. label Oct 19, 2017

gireeshpunathil approved these changes Oct 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

lpinca approved these changes Oct 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

apapirovski reviewed Oct 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

util: unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method

c2f3ebd

apapirovski approved these changes Oct 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

trivikr mentioned this pull request Oct 19, 2017

Github PR takes some time to update diff from forked private branches isaacs/github#1098

Closed

jasnell approved these changes Oct 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Oct 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

apapirovski closed this Oct 22, 2017

akaila deleted the util-tests branch October 23, 2017 04:27

MylesBorins added the backport-requested-v8.x label Oct 23, 2017

akaila mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2017

[v8.x backport] util: expand test coverage for util.deprecate #16430

Closed

1 task

MylesBorins added dont-land-on-v4.x and removed backport-requested-v8.x labels Oct 24, 2017

jasnell mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2017

Proposal: 2017-10-31, Version 9.0.0 (Current) #15135

Merged

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Oct 31, 2017

v8.9.0 proposal #16630

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

util: adding a unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method #16305

util: adding a unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method #16305

akaila commented Oct 18, 2017

trivikr left a comment

trivikr Oct 18, 2017

akaila Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski left a comment

apapirovski Oct 18, 2017

akaila Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski Oct 18, 2017

akaila Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski Oct 18, 2017

akaila Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski Oct 18, 2017

akaila Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski left a comment

apapirovski commented Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski left a comment

apapirovski Oct 19, 2017

trivikr Oct 19, 2017

akaila Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski Oct 19, 2017

akaila Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

trivikr commented Oct 19, 2017

akaila commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

akaila commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 22, 2017

akaila commented Oct 22, 2017

MylesBorins commented Oct 23, 2017

akaila commented Oct 24, 2017

trivikr commented Oct 24, 2017

akaila commented Oct 24, 2017

MylesBorins commented Oct 24, 2017

util: adding a unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method #16305

util: adding a unit test to cover invalid code check in util.deprecate method #16305

Conversation

akaila commented Oct 18, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

trivikr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apapirovski 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apapirovski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apapirovski commented Oct 18, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski 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

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

trivikr commented Oct 19, 2017

akaila commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

akaila commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 22, 2017

akaila commented Oct 22, 2017

MylesBorins commented Oct 23, 2017

akaila commented Oct 24, 2017

trivikr commented Oct 24, 2017

akaila commented Oct 24, 2017

MylesBorins commented Oct 24, 2017