fix(bindings/nodejs): ListOptions test list with deleted

[kingsword09]

Which issue does this PR close?

Related #6320

Rationale for this change

fix ListOptions list with deleted test

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

[kingsword09]

@Xuanwo How do I trigger the COS service test in GitHub Actions? After the merge, when the COS test was triggered, my list with deleted test had issues.

[Xuanwo]

@Xuanwo How do I trigger the COS service test in GitHub Actions? After the merge, when the COS test was triggered, my list with deleted test had issues.

Hi, GitHub doesn't allow forked repositories to trigger tests that require credentials, so this isn't possible. The only way is to become an opendal committer.

According to the cos test, I personally believe it's an issue with the service itself.

[kingsword09]

@Xuanwo How do I trigger the COS service test in GitHub Actions? After the merge, when the COS test was triggered, my list with deleted test had issues.

Hi, GitHub doesn't allow forked repositories to trigger tests that require credentials, so this isn't possible. The only way is to become an opendal committer.

According to the cos test, I personally believe it's an issue with the service itself.

@Xuanwo Then this list_with_deleted test whether you want to take a look again, it always feels a bit wrong，Is it right to list_with(file_path) instead of list_with(parent)?

opendal/core/tests/behavior/async_list.rs

Lines 619 to 651 in 6ad97f8

	pub async fn test_list_files_with_deleted(op: Operator) -> Result<()> {
	if !op.info().full_capability().list_with_deleted {
	return Ok(());
	}
	let parent = TEST_FIXTURE.new_dir_path();
	let file_name = TEST_FIXTURE.new_file_path();
	let file_path = format!("{}{}", parent, file_name);
	op.write(file_path.as_str(), "1").await?;
	// List with deleted should include self too.
	let ds = op.list_with(&file_path).deleted(true).await?;
	assert_eq!(
	ds.len(),
	1,
	"list with deleted should contain current active file version"
	);
	op.write(file_path.as_str(), "2").await?;
	op.delete(file_path.as_str()).await?;
	// This file has been deleted, list with deleted should contain its versions and delete marker.
	let mut ds = op.list_with(&file_path).deleted(true).await?;
	ds.retain(|de| de.path() == file_path && de.metadata().is_deleted());
	assert_eq!(
	ds.len(),
	1,
	"deleted file should be found and only have one"
	);
	Ok(())
	}

[Xuanwo]

Then this list_with_deleted test whether you want to take a look again, it always feels a bit wrong，Is it right to list_with(file_path) instead of list_with(parent)?

Yes, it's expected to list the file_path itself. We should see the file itself but is deleted.

[kingsword09]

Then this list_with_deleted test whether you want to take a look again, it always feels a bit wrong，Is it right to list_with(file_path) instead of list_with(parent)?

Yes, it's expected to list the file_path itself. We should see the file itself but is deleted.

Got it, thanks for confirming!