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

tools: fix regression in doctool #6680

Merged
merged 0 commits into from
May 10, 2016
Merged

Conversation

MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist
  • tests and code linting passes
  • a test and/or benchmark is included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • the commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

tools

Description of change

101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented May 10, 2016

ci: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/2569/

/cc @nodejs/documentation

@MylesBorins MylesBorins added confirmed-bug Issues with confirmed bugs. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. labels May 10, 2016
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

The changes regressed #5873

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

1 similar comment
@eljefedelrodeodeljefe
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@MylesBorins MylesBorins force-pushed the fix-doctool branch 2 times, most recently from 58d7c44 to 3533f38 Compare May 10, 2016 21:09
@MylesBorins MylesBorins merged commit 572e28e into nodejs:master May 10, 2016
@jmm
Copy link
Contributor

jmm commented May 10, 2016

@thealphanerd I'd like to understand what went wrong here. Merging #3888 broke something other than the callsite signature in the test file that was merged at the end of April?

How could I go about testing this to see how it fails (other than that mismatched callsite signature in the test file)?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented May 10, 2016

CI failures are unrelated. I've gone ahead and landed this on master to stop us from breaking CI.

@jmm it actually broke a unit test. If you git checkout 101dd1e and run make test you'll see the failure.

The signature for html needed to be updated in the test, and then the output was no longer correct.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented May 10, 2016

Womp... didn't do good reading comprehension on your response. If you fix the signature in the test then two of the tests were still failing as html was outputting the wrong information. The first test case passed, but the test case to guard against the regression in #5873 broke. reverting the signature change fixed the tests.

Most likely there was an argument that didn't have opt in front of it. Reverting the signature with an optional nodeVersion argument allowed the tool to support the new functionality and pass the tests... so I just settled on it.

I'd be interested to find out what caused the bug if you dig into it

@jmm
Copy link
Contributor

jmm commented May 10, 2016

@jmm it actually broke a unit test. If you git checkout 101dd1e and run make test you'll see the failure.

I saw in the CI report that there was a failure in test/doctool/test-doctool-html.js so I took a look and saw that the signature didn't match the updates from my PR and ran it directly (with my existing Node -- node test/doctool/test-doctool-html.js) and saw it fail.

and then the output was no longer correct.

Really? When I check out that commit and update the calls to the updated signature from my PR I get no failure. That's with my existing Node though. I'm running the full make test / Node build right now to check it out -- I don't understand yet how updating those signatures would cause incorrect output once the callsites are updated in the test file.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jmm I just tried retracing the steps again myself and was able to get the tests to pass as expected

I'm not sure what was going on with my environment to get it to fail before. Odd. I was just as confused when this worked, but ran with it. I moved a little quicker than normal with this due to the tests being broken on master.

I see no reason why you couldn't submit another PR that does some refactoring on the doc-tool if you would like to make a change to what is currently on master.

@jmm
Copy link
Contributor

jmm commented May 10, 2016

@thealphanerd Ok, cool.

I moved a little quicker than normal with this due to the tests being broken on master.

Totally understandable. Sorry the test was broken at all.

I see no reason why you couldn't submit another PR that does some refactoring on the doc-tool if you would like to make a change to what is currently on master.

Sounds good. I still think converting those functions to take options hashes makes sense, so will do.

jmm added a commit to jmm/node that referenced this pull request May 11, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in nodejs#3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in nodejs#6680.
@MylesBorins MylesBorins deleted the fix-doctool branch May 12, 2016 18:14
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: 101dd1e

PR-URL: #6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
eljefedelrodeodeljefe pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
Fishrock123 pushed a commit to Fishrock123/node that referenced this pull request May 30, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in nodejs#3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in nodejs#6680.

PR-URL: nodejs#6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
addaleax pushed a commit to addaleax/node that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: nodejs@101dd1e

PR-URL: nodejs#6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
addaleax pushed a commit to addaleax/node that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in nodejs#3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in nodejs#6680.

PR-URL: nodejs#6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: 101dd1e

PR-URL: #6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: 101dd1e

PR-URL: #6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2016
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: 101dd1e

PR-URL: #6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016
101dd1e introduced a regression in the doctool. This commit reverts
the changes that were made to the function signature of the various
doctool functions while maintaining support for passing in specific
node versions.

Refs: 101dd1e

PR-URL: #6680
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016
These signatures were originally converted to opts hashes in #3888. That
change was misinterpreted as the intrinsic cause of a test failure and
reverted in #6680.

PR-URL: #6690
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Robert Jefe Lindstaedt <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
confirmed-bug Issues with confirmed bugs. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants