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

assert: adds rejects() and doesNotReject() #18023

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

feugy
Copy link
Contributor

@feugy feugy commented Jan 7, 2018

Implement async equivalent of assert.throws() and assert.doesNotThrow().

This PR is a follow-up of #17843, but takes into account James' suggestion to bring this as experimental feature, without change the existing API.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

assert

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the assert Issues and PRs related to the assert subsystem. label Jan 7, 2018
lib/assert.js Outdated
// Asynchronous equivalent of original assert functions.
// Only throws() and doNotThrows() are truely async (all other perform
// synchronous tasks and don't use functions as parameters), but for
// conveniency, the entire API is supported here as well
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: s/conveniency/convenience/?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you 😅

lib/assert.js Outdated
@@ -306,10 +301,38 @@ assert.doesNotThrow = function doesNotThrow(block, error, message) {
expected: error,
operator: 'doesNotThrow',
message: `Got unwanted exception${details}\n${actual.message}`,
stackStartFn: doesNotThrow
stackStartFn: assert.doesNotThrow
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe name assert.doesNotThrow as a top level function and reference it directly here to avoid being messed up by monkey-patched assert.doesNotThrow

lib/assert.js Outdated
@@ -281,16 +274,18 @@ assert.throws = function throws(block, error, message) {
expected: error,
operator: 'throws',
message: `Missing expected exception${details}`,
stackStartFn: throws
stackStartFn: assert.throws
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe name assert.throws as a top level function and reference it directly here to avoid being messed up by monkey-patched assert.throws

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👌

lib/assert.js Outdated
assert.ok(...args);
}

Object.assign(promises, assert, {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since other assigned APIs do not return promises here:

require('assert').promises.fail().then(() => {}); // does not work

This behavior looks somewhat strange to me..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To me as well. I would rather have a dedicated assert.rejects function. Reject is used for promises, so this is a good fit out of my perspective.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's an interesting point.

My intention was to keep the existing behaviour for all assert functions except throws() and doesNotThrow(), which are the only two able to run (potentially async) code.
I wouldn't like to force people writing:

const assert = require('assert').promises

await assert(something)

But we can definitely add new functions like reject() that would be async equivalent of existing one.
Are there any other function you would like to cover?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we are not talking about redesigning a new assert API here, providing a promisified version of the existing assert APIs is good enough to me. Something like

for (const key of Object.keys(assert)) {
  const syncFunc = assert[key];
  promises[key] = async function (...args) { return syncFunc(...args) };
}
// override throws later, or in the block

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hum, but it's actually what I'd like to avoid.

There's no point making assert.ok() or assert.fail() asynchronous. It will make the API more cumbersome to use with no benefit.

It make sense for assert.throws() and assert.doesNotThrow() to turn this code (that we used quite a lot in our projects):

it('should report database option errors', async () => {
  try {
    await transferData({}, '');
    throw new Error('it should have failed');
  } catch (err) {
    assert(err.message.includes('"host" is required'));
  }
});

into

it('should report database option errors', async () =>
  assert.throws(async () => transferData({}, ''), /^Error: "host" is required/)
);

I don't want to redesign the whole API, but rather wants to support the above.

@@ -750,7 +750,8 @@ common.expectsError(
assert.equal(assert.deepEqual, assert.deepStrictEqual);
assert.equal(assert.notEqual, assert.notStrictEqual);
assert.equal(assert.notDeepEqual, assert.notDeepStrictEqual);
assert.equal(Object.keys(assert).length, Object.keys(a).length);
// strict doesn't expose promises
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In this PR, you have currently (all synchronous):

  • require('assert').equal
  • require('assert').strict.equal
  • require('assert').promises.equal
  • require('assert').promises.strict.equal

I wasn't sure it worth providing require('assert').strict.promises. Do you think it worth it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general strict and regular assert should have exactly the same API.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy that

lib/assert.js Outdated
assert.ok(...args);
}

Object.assign(promises, assert, {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To me as well. I would rather have a dedicated assert.rejects function. Reject is used for promises, so this is a good fit out of my perspective.

@jasnell jasnell added the semver-minor PRs that contain new features and should be released in the next minor version. label Jan 9, 2018
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

BridgeAR commented Jan 11, 2018

Because there seems to be a bit of confusion in the discussion:

I personally am strongly against adding a new promise API.

The only thing that should be added out of my perspective are two new functions rejects and doesNotReject. These two would be accessible in both the legacy and strict mode.

They behave similar to the current throws and doesNotThrow functions but they are async instead of sync. No other assert function should be async as there is no reason for it as far as I can tell.

@feugy
Copy link
Contributor Author

feugy commented Jan 11, 2018

@BridgeAR, by bringing assert.promises, I was following the advise @jasnell gave me on my previous PR.

But what you suggested above makes more sense, so I'm 100% with you, and implement it if @joyeecheung is happy with it.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

joyeecheung commented Jan 11, 2018

@feugy If adding asynchronous versions of the synchronous APIs doesn't make sense, then maybe we don't even need to add them to assert.promises. It's fine to only have throws() and doesNotThrow() in assert.promises, and we can work out other APIs later. IMO assert.promises don't need to be feature-complete in this PR.

Copy link
Member

@apapirovski apapirovski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a good start but I'm also in favour of using rejects and doesNotReject instead of a separate promises namespace.

(Worth noting that this would also be in line with the fact that promises emit unhandledRejection rather than uncaughtException.)

lib/assert.js Outdated
@@ -243,24 +243,17 @@ function expectedException(actual, expected, msg) {
return expected.call({}, actual) === true;
}

function getActual(block) {
if (typeof block !== 'function') {
function isFunction(block) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can this be moved down closer to trySyncBlock which is its first usage? Or otherwise, move up those two functions here.

I would actually even suggest just inlining this function since it's only used twice. The savings are minimal and now the error thrown will have an extra function in the trace. The latter can be worked around (captureStackTrace) but I don't think it's worth it.


// awaits for async block and catches error
expectThrows(async () => {
await wait(common.platformTimeout(10));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't need the common.platformTimeout here. Just matters that it's async.

lib/assert.js Outdated
@@ -333,3 +356,31 @@ assert.strict = Object.assign(strict, assert, {
notDeepEqual: assert.notDeepStrictEqual
});
assert.strict.strict = assert.strict;

// Asynchronous equivalent of original assert functions.
// Only throws() and doNotThrows() are truely async (all other perform
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nits:
s/doNotThrows()/doesNotThrow()
s/truely/truly
s/other/others

lib/assert.js Outdated
const actual = getActual(block);
// Shared code for sync and async doesNotThrow(): no-op if actual is undefined.
// Otherwise, produces an AssertionError when actual matches the expected
// message/error class, or let it bubble.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/or let it bubble/or rethrow.

lib/assert.js Outdated
isFunction(block);
try {
block();
} catch (actual) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

catch (err) or catch (e) is more in line with other usage in the code base.

@feugy feugy changed the title assert: asynchronous throws() and doesNotThrow() assert: adds rejects() and doesNotReject() Jan 11, 2018
@feugy
Copy link
Contributor Author

feugy commented Jan 18, 2018

Hello gents!

What do you think about the latest update?

Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM if CI is green

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 18, 2018

Hello gents!

quick fyi... we're not all "gents" :-)

@feugy
Copy link
Contributor Author

feugy commented Jan 18, 2018

Sorry, it's bad habit 😓
I'll start documenting the new functions then.

Copy link
Member

@BridgeAR BridgeAR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall it is already looking very promising to me! Just a few small comments :-)

lib/assert.js Outdated
if (typeof error === 'string') {
if (arguments.length === 3)
if (message !== undefined)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is actually a slightly different behavior as before.

Before assert.throws(() => {}, 'foo', undefined) would also result in an error. That is not the case anymore with this change. As this is completely independent from the actual change here, I would rather not have this included, especially as I think this should throw.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're absolutely right!

To keep this code in an internal function, and not break the existing behaviour, I've used rest params and splat so arguments.length would still make sense.

lib/assert.js Outdated

assert.doesNotThrow = function doesNotThrow(block, error, message) {
const actual = getActual(block);
// Shared code for doesNotThrow() and doesNotReject(): no-op if actual is undefined.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The comment is actually not correct anymore as it is only a no-op in case actual is the sentinel.

I personally feel like it is not necessary to have these comments here because the code is easy to understand but others might disagree.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👌

'use strict';
const common = require('../common');
const assert = require('assert');
const promisify = require('util').promisify;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Super tiny nit:

Destructuring would be nice as in const { promisify } = require('util')

operator: undefined,
actual: undefined,
expected: undefined
}));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not totally happy with this test as it does not test that the code does not fail sync.

So I would write something like:

assert.doesNotThrow(() => {
  assert.rejects(
    () => assert.fail(),
    common.expectsError({
      code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
      type: assert.AssertionError,
      message: 'Failed',
      operator: undefined,
      actual: undefined,
      expected: undefined
    })
  )
});

The same applies to the test below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👌

// awaits for async block
expectsNoRejection(async () => {
await wait(10);
});
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I am not mistaken, we do not know if these really work because the function itself might theoretically execute sync.

So a better test out of my perspective would be:

let promise;
let threw = false;
try {
  promise = assert.doesNotReject(async () => {
    await wait(10);
    assert.fail();
  });
} catch (err) {
  threw = true;
}
assert.strictEqual(threw, false);
assert.rejects(() => promise,
  common.expectsError({
    code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
    type: assert.AssertionError,
    message: 'Got unwanted exception ... '
    ...
  })
);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👌

const promisify = require('util').promisify;
const wait = promisify(setTimeout);

// Ensure async support for assert.rejects() and assert.doesNotReject()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, I would say it tests the functionality of assert.rejects() and assert.doesNotReject() but not that it "ensures" async support for those as they should always be async.

I would describe it as e.g. "Tests assert.rejects() and assert.doesNotReject() by checking their expected output and by verifying that they do not work sync."

lib/assert.js Outdated
}

assert.throws = function throws(block, error, message) {
expectsError(getActual(block), error, message, this);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am a bit surprised that this for the stackStartFn shall work. this should normally refer to either assert.ok or assert.strict.
Can you please write a test for this as well if none exist? :-)

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 added a test, and you were absolutely right.
Providing explicit values keeps the existing stack-traces:

https://github.com/feugy/node/blob/6cdbbe6f520862edda962dbf8507c9e7917bdd1e/test/parallel/test-assert-async.js#L60-L98

@feugy feugy force-pushed the async-assert-throws branch 2 times, most recently from 6cdbbe6 to 6779293 Compare January 21, 2018 22:26
Copy link
Member

@BridgeAR BridgeAR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code change itself looks very good now! Just the tests might need a bit more polishing :-)

lib/assert.js Outdated
};

assert.doesNotReject = async function doesNotReject(block, ...args) {
expectsNoError(assert.doesNotReject, await waitForActual(block), ...args);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Super super tiny nit: you can actually access the own function without assert. It would just save some characters.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It also keep you away from monkey-patching. I would prefer referencing it directly here.

} catch (err) {
const lines = err.stack.split('\n')
assert.equal(lines.length, 6)
assert.ok(lines[0].includes('Missing expected exception'))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: It would be really nice if the error message is changed to Missing expected rejection.

assert.ok(lines[0].includes('Got unwanted exception'))
assert.ok(lines[2].includes('Object.<anonymous>'))
assert.ok(lines[2].includes('test-assert-async.js'))
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The two tests above are already tested for in test-assert.js. This adds the check for the error stack, so it indeed tests something new, but in that case I would rather replace the ones in test-assert.js with these tests instead of "duplicating" them.

}

try {
await assert.doesNotReject(() => Promise.reject())
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This tests the same as https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/18023/files#diff-cdf49dc677a8ea6f00de9f95639355e8R44.
What was not yet tested for is if the functions throws sync.

assert.ok(lines[0].includes('Got unwanted exception'))
assert.ok(lines[2].includes('<anonymous>'))
}
})()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Using a async function as wrapper will actually hide if the function is executed sync or async. So I would just use the pattern as above without the async wrapper.

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

@feugy thanks a lot for being so patient!

Copy link
Contributor

@Leko Leko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

lib/assert.js Outdated
};

assert.doesNotReject = async function doesNotReject(block, ...args) {
expectsNoError(assert.doesNotReject, await waitForActual(block), ...args);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It also keep you away from monkey-patching. I would prefer referencing it directly here.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

LGTM with @BridgeAR 's comments addressed

SyntaxError
);
```

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe the next lines (copied from assert.doesNotThrow() doc) may be skipped in favour of a reference?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree. I would actually even go so far and remove everything from here on. A text like:

Besides the async nature to await the completion it behaves identical to `assert.doesNotThrow()`.

Keep an example with async await and also maybe add a example using promises.

The same can be applied to the reject function.

lib/assert.js Outdated
operator: stackStartFn.name,
message: `Missing expected ${stackStartFn === rejects
? 'rejection'
: 'exception'}${details}`,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

operator & message will now contain appropriate values

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is the unwritten rule to not use multi line template strings in Node.js. This does look somewhat elegant but it is probably best to just have something like: Missing expected ${fnType}${details}.

e => {
assert.strictEqual(e.code, 'ERR_ASSERTION');
assert(/^Missing expected exception\.$/.test(e.message));
assert.strictEqual(e.operator, 'throws');
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 wasn't confident to replace common.expectsError() with such custom assertions, but couldn't find a better way to reuse the existing test, as suggested.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would actually just keep this as is and just add a single line to one of the existing tests that checks for assert.ok(!err.stack.includes('at throws').


> Stability: 1 - Experimental

Awaits for the promise returned by function `block` to complete and not be rejected. See [`assert.rejects()`][] for more details.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This exceeds 80 characters.

expectsError(throws, getActual(block), ...args);
}

assert.throws = throws;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit (non-blocking): I personally prefer the following to save lines:

assert.throws = function throws(block, ...args) {
  expectsError(throws, getActual(block), ...args);
};

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 also prefer function expressions.
But even named, function expression do not benefit from hoisting.

This would imply to use assert.doesNotReject() here, and here.

Same goes for other functions.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point. We could check for the function name instead but that could theoretically be manipulated.

So just keep it as is. Thanks for the heads up.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, while looking at the code again: we actually already use the function name and do not strictly test if it it a "valid" function. So we could indeed just switch to name checking only.

SyntaxError
);
```

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree. I would actually even go so far and remove everything from here on. A text like:

Besides the async nature to await the completion it behaves identical to `assert.doesNotThrow()`.

Keep an example with async await and also maybe add a example using promises.

The same can be applied to the reject function.

lib/assert.js Outdated
operator: stackStartFn.name,
message: `Missing expected ${stackStartFn === rejects
? 'rejection'
: 'exception'}${details}`,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is the unwritten rule to not use multi line template strings in Node.js. This does look somewhat elegant but it is probably best to just have something like: Missing expected ${fnType}${details}.

}
assert.strictEqual(threw, false);
assert.rejects(() => promise,
err => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am relatively certain that this is going to trigger a lint error. The err should probably be in parentheses. The same applies to the test below.

} catch (err) {
threw = true;
}
assert.strictEqual(threw, false);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After thinking about this again, the try catch and the threw is not necessary here at all. If the promise throws the test would fail right away. threw is only necessary for tests that check for threw === true. So the tests can be much smaller (I know I originally suggested this pattern).

message: 'Failed'
})
)
});
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The wrapper is not needed as the test would fail right away if assert.rejects would fail.

)
});

assert.doesNotThrow(() => assert.doesNotReject(() => {}))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The wrapper is not needed due to the reason mentioned above.

e => {
assert.strictEqual(e.code, 'ERR_ASSERTION');
assert(/^Missing expected exception\.$/.test(e.message));
assert.strictEqual(e.operator, 'throws');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would actually just keep this as is and just add a single line to one of the existing tests that checks for assert.ok(!err.stack.includes('at throws').

const lines = e.stack.split('\n')
assert.equal(lines.length, 11)
assert.ok(lines[0].includes(e.message))
assert.ok(lines[1].includes('at assert.throws'))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, I am not certain if that is actually true? I thought that frame would actually be excluded? Do the tests pass?

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

@feugy see #18699 and #18669.

I would just wait with removing it until it is decided if we deprecate it or not because I would like to have feature parity.

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

@BridgeAR It seems to me like rejections have slightly different semantics than throw. Since it's currently possible to just entirely ignore unhandledRejection in our code, I can see a use for doesNotReject. Just IMO of course...

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

BridgeAR commented Mar 2, 2018

@apapirovski I agree that it is not exactly the same but the reason for that is that we have another issue that has to be solved as well. See #15126.

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

apapirovski commented Mar 2, 2018

@BridgeAR Yeah, I'm aware and have dug around in that PR, actually, but that code will take a while to land given the performance implications. I'm not really certain we have a great path forward that doesn't impact performance. Maybe I'm wrong...

(I have some thoughts on how to do it without all of the C++ boundary crossing but only theoretical atm.)

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

apapirovski commented Mar 5, 2018

@BridgeAR given that this is only semver-minor whereas any changes to uncaught Promise handling would be semver-major, do you think it would be ok to land as is? Especially in the light of the recent rejection of the doesNotThrow deprecation?

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

BridgeAR commented Mar 5, 2018

@apapirovski yes, I am now ok with landing it as is. I will open another PR to add a comment to it similar to doesNotThrow afterwards.

@feugy thanks a lot for your work and for being patient :)

@feugy
Copy link
Contributor Author

feugy commented Mar 6, 2018

It's all fine!
I'll resolve the conflict soon.

Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().
@feugy
Copy link
Contributor Author

feugy commented Mar 10, 2018

And done! What's next?

BridgeAR pushed a commit to BridgeAR/node that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2018
Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().

PR-URL: nodejs#18023
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

Landed in 599337f 🎉

I removed the experimental as I do not really see that and fixed a typo in the docs while landing.

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Member

Should this be backported to v9.x-staging? If yes please follow the guide and raise a backport PR, if not let me know or add the dont-land-on label.

@not-an-aardvark
Copy link
Contributor

If this gets backported, it should be backported at the same time as #19650 (possibly in the same commit).

BridgeAR pushed a commit to BridgeAR/node that referenced this pull request May 1, 2018
Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().

PR-URL: nodejs#18023
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
MayaLekova pushed a commit to MayaLekova/node that referenced this pull request May 8, 2018
Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().

PR-URL: nodejs#18023
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
MylesBorins pushed a commit to MylesBorins/node that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2018
Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().

PR-URL: nodejs#18023
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
Implement asynchronous equivalent for assert.throws() and
assert.doesNotThrow().

Backport-PR-URL: #24019
PR-URL: #18023
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Shingo Inoue <leko.noor@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
@BethGriggs BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
assert Issues and PRs related to the assert subsystem. notable-change PRs with changes that should be highlighted in changelogs. semver-minor PRs that contain new features and should be released in the next minor version.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants