-
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: fix test-cli-node-options on Windows #16709
Conversation
nodejs#16495 broke the Windows build, accounting for `\r\n` newlines should fix it. Ref: nodejs#16495
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/11167/ @nodejs/collaborators @apapirovski This should be fast-tracked to unbreak CI |
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ if (common.hasCrypto) { | |||
expect('--abort_on-uncaught_exception', 'B\n'); | |||
expect('--max-old-space-size=0', 'B\n'); | |||
expect('--stack-trace-limit=100', | |||
/(\s*at f \(\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\n){100}/, | |||
/(\s*at f \(\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\r?\n){100}/, |
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.
Maybe worth making it a non-capturing group:
- /(\s*at f \(\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\r?\n){100}/,
+ /(\s*at f \(?:\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\r?\n){100}/,
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.
Or rather
- /(\s*at f \(\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\r?\n){100}/,
+ /(?:\s*at f \(\[eval\]:1:\d*\)\r?\n){100}/,
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.
Since this is a test file, I’d go with clarity over performance? I know it took me a while to get the hang of what ?:
means when learning regexes and seeing that in the wild…
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.
Interesting, I find not using non-capturing groups more confusing, as for me a group is for capturing (I think using it for capturing is more common than using it to repeat with (){x}
).
The reason I suggested it was because my first thought was "why does the test need to capture 100 different groups", and the fact that the regex gets passed through a custom function makes it harder to track. Performance is a secondary concern.
Landed in 3d4d5e0 to unbreak CI Feel free to implement suggestions as separate PRs though :) |
#16495 broke the Windows build, accounting for `\r\n` newlines should fix it. Ref: #16495 PR-URL: #16709 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
nodejs#16495 broke the Windows build, accounting for `\r\n` newlines should fix it. Ref: nodejs#16495 PR-URL: nodejs#16709 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
Should land with #16495 when that lands. |
nodejs#16495 broke the Windows build, accounting for `\r\n` newlines should fix it. Ref: nodejs#16495 PR-URL: nodejs#16709 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
#16495 broke the Windows build, accounting for
\r\n
newlines should fix it.Ref: #16495
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
cli