test: Made unit test passing with node-chakracore #3251

kunalspathak · 2017-03-21T22:01:50Z

There were 4 unit test that were failing with node-chakracore because of error message difference between v8 and chakracore. Added engine specific check to validate the expected error message.

Ref: nodejs/node-chakracore#189

dougwilson

Based on what the tests are actually trying to assert (that the error was passed to the callback), I don't think it's necessary at all to be validating the specific error message back. I'm sure there would be a way to just make a single conditional work on v8 and chakracore without checking the engine.

dougwilson · 2017-03-21T22:07:56Z

In addition to my comment above, it would be awesome (this is tangental; so really a different PR) if we could add chakracore to Travis CI so we can keep it green for chakra.

dougwilson · 2017-03-21T22:09:07Z

test/app.render.js

          // nextTick to prevent cyclic
          process.nextTick(function(){
-            err.message.should.match(/Cannot read property '[^']+' of undefined/);
+            err.message.should.match(jsEngine.engineSpecificMessage({


This could probably just be assert.ok(err)

dougwilson · 2017-03-21T22:10:54Z

test/res.render.js

        request(app)
        .get('/')
-        .expect(/Cannot read property '[^']+' of undefined/, done);
+        .expect(jsEngine.engineSpecificMessage({


I would just replace the res.end(err.message) above with res.send('caught error: ' + err.message') and then the expect could just be .expect(/^caught error: /, done) since that would tell us we got the error in next(err)

dougwilson · 2017-03-21T22:11:16Z

test/res.render.js

        request(app)
        .get('/')
-        .expect(/Cannot read property '[^']+' of undefined/, done);
+        .expect(jsEngine.engineSpecificMessage({


This could just do the same thing the above did.

kunalspathak · 2017-03-21T22:14:08Z

Thanks @dougwilson for the quick feedback. I was hesitant in adding engineSpecificMessage() but I didn't want to change the meaning of unit test and not much aware on how important those validations are. If you feel that checking for error message is not that important, I can go ahead with fixing as you suggested.

kunalspathak · 2017-03-21T22:14:49Z

if we could add chakracore to Travis CI so we can keep it green for chakra.

Is this the right repo to open issue for CI for node-chakracore?

dougwilson · 2017-03-22T00:41:04Z

If you feel that checking for error message is not that important, I can go ahead with fixing as you suggested.

In these three cases, the tests do not actually care what the message is, as can be seen in the test descriptions.

Is this the right repo to open issue for CI for node-chakracore?

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

kunalspathak · 2017-03-22T00:49:10Z

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I mean, is there a place where we can track this work item? How is your existing Travis CI for node-v8 set up? I can take a look into scripts, if you can point me to it. But if it is just as simple as downloading node binaries from nodejs.org then you can get node-chakracore binaries from here.

dougwilson · 2017-03-22T00:54:12Z

I flagged this PR as "needs tests" since there are no tests for this--i.e. if I revert the code after merging the CI will not flag any failures, so we have no way to keep these working down the road after this first merge. Ideally if chakracore is a supported platform (which I see no reason not to get it there), but Express.js is made up of a lot of dependencies, a lot of which have entire test suites not represented here, so prior to marking Express.js as supporting chakracore, ideally at least all the Express.js project dependencies below it have their test suites running in chakracore as well so we can keep everything functioning in an ongoing manner.

I mean, is there a place where we can track this work item?

Just make a PR with the setup or provide we the instructions for how any project can test against chakracore in Travis CI and I can help get it setup.

How is your existing Travis CI for node-v8 set up? I can take a look into scripts, if you can point me to it.

We just use the standard Node.js setup: https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/languages/javascript-with-nodejs/

You can find our .travis.yml file in the root of the project: https://github.com/expressjs/express/blob/master/.travis.yml

Ideally we need to test on Windows as well (Travis CI is the Linux test platform). We use AppVeyor for that (and file is here: https://github.com/expressjs/express/blob/master/appveyor.yml)

But if it is just as simple as downloading node binaries from nodejs.org then you can get node-chakracore binaries from here.

I'm not familiar with how to do that in Travis CI / AppVeyor. Are there any instructions for how to do this? How do other Node.js projects test against chakracore?

kunalspathak · 2017-06-15T00:02:44Z

@dougwilson - Can you follow these instructions to enable node-chakracore testing in CI?

kunalspathak · 2017-06-23T18:35:55Z

Ping, @dougwilson , did you get chance to look into nvs?

dougwilson · 2017-06-23T18:47:40Z

No, I have not had a chance, though I assume you should be able to update the PR to do that as well, right? Travis CI just uses whatever the contents of .travis.yml is on the given branch.

kunalspathak · 2017-06-27T19:01:12Z

@jasongin - FYI.

kunalspathak · 2017-06-27T22:04:47Z

@dougwilson - I added travis and appveyor support for node-chakracore. The last job (chakracore/latest) in travis is failing because you might want to add github API token to this repo. See this for more details. I am not sure why others are failing and I am not too familiar with travis working. If I understand correctly, all the dependencies should be installed in install step and script section should work, but for some reason it doesn't find some modules. If you get chance, can you please take a look and suggest what is needed?

dougwilson · 2017-06-28T02:43:25Z

Why download the files from GitHub at all? Looking at https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/releases it looks like the binaries are available on Azure, which I presume requires no GitHub token.

kunalspathak · 2017-06-28T06:07:59Z

Why download the files from GitHub at all?

@jasongin, any idea?

jasongin · 2017-06-28T06:14:12Z

NVS is not downloading ChakraCore releases, it is downloading Node-ChakraCore releases. The latter are not hosted on Azure. Additionally, NVS needs to query the GitHub releases API to find what releases are available and metadata about each release.

kunalspathak · 2017-06-28T20:40:25Z

@dougwilson - I was able to make travis working with only exception for node-chakracore for which you will have to add github API token to the repo.

dougwilson · 2017-06-28T20:41:25Z

Setting up a GitHub token is not going to work for this project, unfortunately. It would need protection so it needs to be encrypted, but that still has this problem:

From https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/environment-variables/#Defining-encrypted-variables-in-.travis.yml encrypted variables are not available in builds in pull requests, and since pull requests are used even for the project collaborators, it means that it's effectively useless as all PRs will never be able to install ChakraCore.

Now that nodejs.org started hosting chakracore-release, change the default remote for `chakracore` to https://nodejs.org/download/chakracore-release/. This will help using nvs for expressjs/express#3251 , expressjs/body-parser#233 and sass/node-sass#1777

This supports downloading chakracore release binaries from nodejs.org instead of github

kunalspathak · 2017-07-11T05:10:13Z

@dougwilson - should be good to go?

dougwilson · 2017-07-11T05:15:28Z

Nice, great to see it all working now \m/ . Is there a way to pin the chakracore to a given minor version or move it to allowed failure? Just requiring a PR to pass with whatever the bleeding edge is is not good; it caused a lot of heart ache with Node.js, which is why the minors are pinned and any non-pinned thing is allowed to fail.

kunalspathak · 2017-07-11T05:25:50Z

The node-chakracore is a stable release that contains released and stabilized version of chakracore. However I understand the concern and we can pin the existing version of node-chakracore. How do you do it?

dougwilson · 2017-07-11T05:26:30Z

We pin them to the minor version.

kunalspathak · 2017-07-11T05:27:42Z

Sure, but my question was how do you specify what version is pinned? Is it done through .travis.yml and appveyor.yml?

dougwilson · 2017-07-11T05:31:14Z

Sorry, I didn't realize the question at first. Yes, you can see all the minor versions listed in both of those files for Node.js

dougwilson · 2017-07-11T05:51:17Z

Also, I don't see the Node.js nightly running on Travis CI anymore after this change, if you can look into why that build got dropped from the matrix.

kunalspathak · 2017-07-11T16:16:03Z

Also, I don't see the Node.js nightly running on Travis CI anymore after this change

Hhm, i am not sure matrix/include/allow-failures work. I will experiment this a little bit to make sure nightly is picked up.

* Allow nightly to run and allow_failure in travis * Pin the version of node-chakracore

kunalspathak · 2017-07-11T18:16:04Z

@dougwilson - Pinned the chakracore version and made nightly run in travis.

kunalspathak · 2017-07-13T18:17:57Z

Let me know if anything else is needed to merge this PR.

dougwilson · 2017-07-13T18:34:26Z

Looks pretty good to me. I did just recently find out from another module that the new npm 5 will incorrectly create a lockfile during the npm prune operation at the top of the cache restore, and will cause issues when any new dependency is added so it won't install. Since this adds npm 5 to be a required passing test, let's get the changes necessary to property restore the modules from the cache when npm 5 is being used merged prior to this (I'll do that). May have to resolve some merge conflicts after landing that change though. Alternatively we can land this with npm 5 versions in the allowed failures list first then the npm 5 support.

Which way do you want to proceed?

kunalspathak · 2017-07-13T18:45:26Z

I think if we want to add support for npm 5 in near future, let us add clean support instead of allowing it to fail initially and then cleaning it up. Will you be updating the same PR? I think different PR would make more sense in this case. Thoughts?

dougwilson · 2017-07-15T19:52:51Z

Yep, separate from this PR makes sense to me as well. I'll go ahead and make that today.

kunalspathak · 2017-07-17T20:48:22Z

@dougwilson - Let me know if you need anything else to merge this PR.

dougwilson · 2017-07-17T20:50:24Z

I never got to implementing the npm 5 support yet. So really it's just either (1) we are waiting for me to land that first or (2) change the pr to make the npm 5 runs allowed to fail. Since we agreed on option 1, just need to get that done before this can land.

closes #3251

dougwilson suggested changes Mar 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

dougwilson self-assigned this Mar 21, 2017

dougwilson added pr tests labels Mar 21, 2017

dougwilson reviewed Mar 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

dougwilson added the needs tests label Mar 22, 2017

kunalspathak mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2017

test: Made unit test passing with node-chakracore expressjs/body-parser#233

Closed

dougwilson force-pushed the master branch from d0add14 to 1b6e700 Compare April 27, 2017 05:12

kunalspathak and others added 3 commits June 27, 2017 11:58

test: Made unit test passing with node-chakracore

d1209e4

added node-chakracore support in appveyor.yml

e83af18

added node-chakracore support in .travis.yml

81e1116

kunalspathak force-pushed the node_chakracore_test branch from b91b7c1 to 81e1116 Compare June 27, 2017 19:00

Misc build matrix fix

61ddbc4

Remove install step

dca8e20

kunalspathak mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2017

Update Chakracore default remote jasongin/nvs#62

Merged

kunalspathak added 2 commits July 10, 2017 17:57

Upgrade nvs to 1.4

64b5df1

This supports downloading chakracore release binaries from nodejs.org instead of github

travis: Use trusty distribution

e5c142e

dougwilson removed the needs tests label Jul 11, 2017

some bug fixes

4787487

* Allow nightly to run and allow_failure in travis * Pin the version of node-chakracore

kunalspathak mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2017

Chakracore support mapbox/node-pre-gyp#311

Closed

dougwilson closed this in abec672 Sep 22, 2017

dougwilson mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2017

Release 4.16 #3423

Merged

20 tasks

dougwilson pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2017

tests: check render error without engine-specific message

19a2eeb

closes #3251

Uh oh!

test: Made unit test passing with node-chakracore #3251

test: Made unit test passing with node-chakracore #3251

Uh oh!

Conversation

kunalspathak commented Mar 21, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Mar 21, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson Mar 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dougwilson Mar 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dougwilson Mar 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Mar 21, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Mar 21, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Mar 22, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Mar 22, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Mar 22, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 15, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 23, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jun 23, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 27, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

jasongin commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jun 28, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 13, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 13, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 13, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 15, 2017

Uh oh!

kunalspathak commented Jul 17, 2017

Uh oh!

dougwilson commented Jul 17, 2017