-
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
[v8.x backport] test: remove common.noop #14174
Closed
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: nodejs#12822 Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
addaleax
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2017
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.
Thanks! I'll merge once CI comes back good
refack
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2017
addaleax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2017
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: #12822 Backport-PR-URL: #14174 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Landed in 0bff728 |
addaleax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2017
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: #12822 Backport-PR-URL: #14174 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Fishrock123
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2017
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: #12822 Backport-PR-URL: #14174 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2017
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: #12822 Backport-PR-URL: #14174 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2017
This change removes `common.noop` from the Node.js internal testing common module. Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the `common.noop` abstraction. First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be aware of to be effective on the project. Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a matter of time.) Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all. Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using the abstraction. `common.noop` doesn't save anything over `() => {}`. So, I propose removing it. PR-URL: #12822 Backport-PR-URL: #14174 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
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.
Backport of #12822.
This change removes
common.noop
from the Node.js internal testingcommon module.
Over the last few weeks, I've grown to dislike the
common.noop
abstraction.
First, new (and experienced) contributors are unaware of it and so it
results in a large number of low-value nits on PRs. It also increases
the number of things newcomers and infrequent contributors have to be
aware of to be effective on the project.
Second, it is confusing. Is it a singleton/property or a getter? Which
should be expected? This can lead to subtle and hard-to-find bugs. (To
my knowledge, none have landed on master. But I also think it's only a
matter of time.)
Third, the abstraction is low-value in my opinion. What does it really
get us? A case could me made that it is without value at all.
Lastly, and this is minor, but the abstraction is wordier than not using
the abstraction.
common.noop
doesn't save anything over() => {}
.So, I propose removing it.
PR-URL: #12822
Reviewed-By: Teddy Katz [email protected]
Reviewed-By: Timothy Gu [email protected]
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum [email protected]
Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock [email protected]
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen [email protected]
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann [email protected]
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
test