Use outputStream instead of stdout for output file #4858
Conversation
|
Oh wow that are a lot of failing tests that I was not expecting, I'll look into them |
packages/jest-cli/src/run_jest.js
Outdated
| } | ||
| } | ||
| return options.onComplete && options.onComplete(runResults); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export default async function runJest({ | ||
| export default (async function runJest({ |
|
@rogeliog: mind pushing this over the finish line so we can ship Jest 22? |
rogeliog
force-pushed
the
outputFile_use_stream
branch
from
3fa33d7
to
ed5fb8a
Compare
| @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ const processResults = (runResults, options) => { | |||
| const filePath = path.resolve(process.cwd(), outputFile); | |||
|
|
|||
| fs.writeFileSync(filePath, JSON.stringify(formatTestResults(runResults))); | |||
| process.stdout.write( | |||
| options.outputStream.write( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I only ended up changing it for the case when --json --outputFile and --useStderr are used at the same time. Changing it for --json --useStderr wihtout --outputFIle broke a lot of integration tests, which made me curious if that was even the expected behavior. That is why I left it the way it was.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense this way. Does it still fix the issue?
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4858 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 61.66% 61.66% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 213 213
Lines 7070 7069 -1
Branches 3 3
==========================================
- Hits 4360 4359 -1
Misses 2709 2709
Partials 1 1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Summary
Fixes #4795
Test plan
This uses the output stream instead of a hardcoded
stdout