Skip to content
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_runner: remove redundant check from coverage #48070

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 29, 2023

Conversation

cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig commented May 19, 2023

The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter out URLs that start with 'node:'.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/test_runner

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test_runner Issues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem. labels May 19, 2023
@MoLow
Copy link
Member

MoLow commented May 19, 2023

I am not sure I understand why this is redundant

Comment on lines 381 to 387
if (StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/') ||
// On Windows some generated coverages are invalid.
!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:')) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we start with the file: check so core modules can still skip the /node_modules/ check? I suggest we also remove the comment which looks a bit out of place/context.

Suggested change
if (StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/') ||
// On Windows some generated coverages are invalid.
!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:')) {
if (!StringPrototypeStartsWith(url, 'file:') || StringPrototypeIncludes(url, '/node_modules/')) {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll remove the comment. I think having the node_modules check first will be more beneficial in real world apps where the node_modules directory makes up the bulk of the app.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fair, maybe add a comment explaining the order was chosen purposefully and why

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjihrig commented May 19, 2023

I am not sure I understand why this is redundant

All of the valid coverages should start with file: or node:, but we aren't interested in reporting coverage for the core files. I have a plan to support explicit includes and excludes in the future so someone could still opt back in to getting coverage for core files. Coverage URLs that start with node: fall into the category of URLs that don't start with file:, so the check is redundant.

The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@MoLow MoLow added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label May 28, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@debadree25 debadree25 added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label May 29, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label May 29, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot merged commit b47fce0 into nodejs:main May 29, 2023
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Landed in b47fce0

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 30, 2023
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.

PR-URL: #48070
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2023
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.

PR-URL: #48070
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
MoLow pushed a commit to MoLow/node that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.

PR-URL: nodejs#48070
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
Ceres6 pushed a commit to Ceres6/node that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2023
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.

PR-URL: nodejs#48070
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
Ceres6 pushed a commit to Ceres6/node that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2023
The code coverage reporting logic already filters out URLs that
don't start with 'file:', so there is no need to also filter
out URLs that start with 'node:'.

PR-URL: nodejs#48070
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Debadree Chatterjee <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. test_runner Issues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants