feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test #1564

a8m · 2015-02-22T00:40:09Z

following #545 discussion.
I added a stack-trace filter(based on @rstacruz mocha-clean module), ran make and added tests too.
If for some reason someone want to stay with full stack-trace, just run mocha with the --full-trace flag

jancarloviray · 2015-02-23T06:33:15Z

awesome. please merge this :) 👍 thanks @rstacruz.

danielstjules · 2015-03-06T07:35:05Z

@a8m That's pretty sweet!

danielstjules:~/git/mocha (master =)
$ cat example.js
it('test', function(done) {
  done(new Error('Something went wrong!'));
});

danielstjules:~/git/mocha (master =)
$ ./bin/mocha example.js


  ․

  0 passing (4ms)
  1 failing

  1)  test:
     Error: Something went wrong!
      at Context.<anonymous> (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/example.js:2:8)
      at Test.Runnable.run (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runnable.js:233:15)
      at Runner.runTest (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:387:10)
      at /Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:470:12
      at next (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:312:14)
      at /Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:322:7
      at next (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:257:23)
      at Immediate._onImmediate (/Users/danielstjules/git/mocha/lib/runner.js:289:5)
      at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:358:17)



danielstjules:~/git/mocha (master =)
$ git checkout stack-trace
Switched to branch 'stack-trace'
danielstjules:~/git/mocha (stack-trace)
$ ./bin/mocha example.js


  ․

  0 passing (7ms)
  1 failing

  1)  test:
     Error: Something went wrong!
      at Context.<anonymous> (example.js:2:8)
      at Test.Runnable.run (lib/runnable.js:229:15)
      at Runner.runTest (lib/runner.js:390:10)
      at lib/runner.js:473:12
      at next (lib/runner.js:315:14)
      at lib/runner.js:325:7
      at next (lib/runner.js:260:23)
      at Immediate._onImmediate (lib/runner.js:292:5)

In addition to the work here, I wonder if there'd be interest in removing parts of the trace that propagated from mocha itself. 75% of the calls in that trace are from runner.js, which isn't something I think we need to see? For example, with the test case above, I think the following output would be a lot nicer:

  1)  test:
     Error: Something went wrong!
      at Context.<anonymous> (example.js:2:8)

You'd just have to traverse the trace, bottom up, in search of the first line that wasn't a file in mocha. Once found, just drop the lines below. This way you're not hiding any information related to the user's code. I remember doing something similar with https://github.com/danielstjules/pho a while back.

a8m · 2015-03-06T08:06:13Z

@danielstjules you get this trace because you run it from mocha itself (it's assume that is your code, and you care of it).
PTAL on the mocha filter.

danielstjules · 2015-03-06T08:15:11Z

Exactly what I hoped for. :) +1

$ mocha example.js

  ․

  0 passing (5ms)
  1 failing

  1)  test:
     Error: Something went wrong!
      at Context.<anonymous> (example.js:2:8)

rstacruz · 2015-03-06T08:37:19Z

mocha.js


-  return [];
+   if (nodeVersion < 0x00090B) {


perhaps semver would be a better fit here? (semver.satisfies(process.version, '>= 0.9.11'))

maybe, but it's not part of this PR. see: commit
(I just fixed the indentation)

rstacruz · 2015-03-06T08:38:36Z

If I may just chime in with API design input, perhaps --stack-trace is not the best choice for a name. It seems to imply that stack traces will not be shown unless it's turned on. Maybe it would be better as --full-stack-trace.

Good work!

a8m · 2015-03-06T15:48:14Z

Good point @rstacruz,
--full-stack-trace is too long imo, maybe --full-trace could be better ?.

a8m · 2015-03-07T13:12:11Z

update: renaming flag to: --full-trace

danielstjules · 2015-03-07T20:09:40Z

Would you be willing to run git reset HEAD~ and git add -p to keep your feature-related changes in a separate commit from style fixes? It'll keep blame a lot cleaner. And makes the PR quicker to review. I think @rstacruz's comment on if (nodeVersion < 0x00090B) { is an example of not being sure at a glance what's feature-related vs clean up.

a8m · 2015-03-07T20:23:04Z

sure @danielstjules

a8m · 2015-03-07T20:35:51Z

ping @danielstjules

danielstjules · 2015-03-07T22:04:20Z

Sorry to nitpick, for some reason a8m@8d90e59 still contains changes to extraGlobals, along with a bunch of other (and totally valid) style changes.

Would you mind force-pushing https://github.com/danielstjules/mocha/commits/stack-trace onto your branch? I cleaned up that second commit a bit (went from 400 line changes, to 270)

a8m · 2015-03-07T22:20:37Z

PTAL @danielstjules

danielstjules · 2015-03-07T22:43:16Z

LGTM :) +1

cc @travisjeffery @boneskull @dasilvacontin

a8m · 2015-03-09T13:24:12Z

@travisjeffery can you please take a look ?

travisjeffery · 2015-03-09T13:45:43Z

i tried this and it didn't work for me. lemme try again...

travisjeffery · 2015-03-09T13:47:23Z

ah nvm there we go, yup lgtm

shorten stack traces by default, add --full-trace

a8m · 2015-03-09T13:50:52Z

That's awesome, thx @travisjeffery

rstacruz · 2015-03-20T05:57:59Z

Is this something that will land in 2.3.0?

I'll update mocha-clean (the module this was based off of) to throw a warning for newer versions of mocha.

dasilvacontin · 2015-03-27T09:14:42Z

@rstacruz supposedly. I'm very excited to see this published soon. 😄

johannes-photobox · 2015-04-23T16:07:00Z

👍

mocha-clean/brief is so much more readable!

myndzi · 2015-05-21T20:46:34Z

This is actually super UNhelpful in certain cases (mainly async things); I'm running Mocha programmatically and can't seem to work out how to disable this. Specifying fullTrace: true or fullStackTrace: true to the Mocha constructor or calling mocha.fullTrace() don't seem to work. Halp?

myndzi · 2015-05-21T20:50:48Z

Seems to be using this here: https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/blob/master/lib/runner.js#L209 -- not sure why, since the this object does not contain that option when it is enabled on mocha.

dasilvacontin · 2015-05-21T20:52:02Z

Seems to be using this here: https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/blob/master/lib/runner.js#L209 -- not sure why, since the this object does not contain that option when it is enabled on mocha.

It's set here: https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/blob/master/lib/mocha.js#L429

dasilvacontin · 2015-05-21T20:53:03Z

fullStackTrace: true or mocha.fullTrace() should do the trick. Else, something is going wrong.

myndzi · 2015-05-21T21:02:24Z

Indeed, something is going wrong. It doesn't do the trick.

dasilvacontin · 2015-05-21T21:14:19Z

Can you share a Gist with sample code that reproduces the issue?

myndzi · 2015-05-21T21:23:32Z

Not easily, but it may be indirectly my fault; I'll have to dig deeper. I don't see why the 'this' argument would be wrong and mocha still run at all, but I'll find out. It seemed such an obvious disconnect, that I figured at first that whoever submitted the patch just didn't test the opposite case thoroughly and made a logic error.

myndzi · 2015-05-21T21:30:56Z

Yep, I got it sorted. It's weird to set the options and then just copy them over, seems very non-DRY. I had to monkey patch mocha.run to emit an extra event; looks like there's support in the code that will let me not have to do that anymore now. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the prompt response.

In the opposite direction of my original comment, internal node filtering doesn't catch _stream_readable.js or net.js among other things; not sure if that is intentional. I'm pretty sure that all internal modules do not have paths, so that function could probably be simplified and made more forward-compatible too.

rstacruz mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2015

This is great! :) Should have been a default in Mocha. Could you please PR it to main repo? rstacruz/mocha-clean#7

Closed

rstacruz reviewed Mar 6, 2015
View reviewed changes

a8m added 2 commits March 8, 2015 00:18

style(*): indentation, etc.

9123d7a

feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test

558191d

travisjeffery pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2015

Merge pull request #1564 from a8m/master

369fb48

shorten stack traces by default, add --full-trace

travisjeffery merged commit 369fb48 into mochajs:master Mar 9, 2015

This was referenced Mar 14, 2015

Add support for suppressing stack traces #1095

Closed

highlight test codelines in stacktraces #961

Closed

Truncated Stack Trace #815

Closed

twada mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2015

Stack traces missing for >= 2.2.1, regression? #1736

Closed

papandreou mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2015

Stop truncating the stack of thrown errors unexpectedjs/unexpected#169

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test #1564

feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test #1564

a8m commented Feb 22, 2015

jancarloviray commented Feb 23, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 6, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 6, 2015

rstacruz Mar 6, 2015

a8m Mar 6, 2015

rstacruz commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 9, 2015

travisjeffery commented Mar 9, 2015

travisjeffery commented Mar 9, 2015

a8m commented Mar 9, 2015

rstacruz commented Mar 20, 2015

dasilvacontin commented Mar 27, 2015

johannes-photobox commented Apr 23, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test #1564

feat(runner/stack-trace): solve issue #545 + test #1564

Conversation

a8m commented Feb 22, 2015

jancarloviray commented Feb 23, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 6, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 6, 2015

rstacruz Mar 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

a8m Mar 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rstacruz commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 6, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 7, 2015

danielstjules commented Mar 7, 2015

a8m commented Mar 9, 2015

travisjeffery commented Mar 9, 2015

travisjeffery commented Mar 9, 2015

a8m commented Mar 9, 2015

rstacruz commented Mar 20, 2015

dasilvacontin commented Mar 27, 2015

johannes-photobox commented Apr 23, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

dasilvacontin commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015

myndzi commented May 21, 2015