test: increase coverage of async_hooks #13336
Conversation
nodejs-github-bot
added
async_hooks
|
Unrelated to this PR, but I noticed that we |
|
|
||
| async_hooks.runInAsyncIdScope(asyncId, common.mustCall(() => { | ||
| assert.strictEqual(async_hooks.currentId(), asyncId); | ||
| })); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this test can go into parallel (it doesn’t use any of the async hook test helpers here)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@addaleax Done, PTAL :=)
DavidCai1111
force-pushed
the
test/async-hook-coverage
branch
2 times, most recently
from
385a979
to
629f23b
Compare
Sigh, I guess it is because it doesn't appear in https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/vcbuild.bat#L68L82 |
test/async-hooks/test-emit-init.js
Outdated
| const expectedId = async_hooks.newUid(); | ||
| const expectedTriggerId = async_hooks.newUid(); | ||
| const expectedType = 'test_emit_init_type'; | ||
| const expectedResource = Symbol('test_emit_init_resource'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A resource must be an object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@AndreasMadsen Updated, PTAL :=)
DavidCai1111
force-pushed
the
test/async-hook-coverage
branch
from
629f23b
to
d44fb25
Compare
Yep, that was my question 😄 . Why is it not present in |
|
/cc @refack regarding |
AFAIK there's no reason except nobody bothered to add it. |
|
Cross-ref: #13378 |
| switch (process.argv[2]) { | ||
| case 'test_init_callback': | ||
| initHooks({ | ||
| oninit: common.mustCall(() => { throw new Error('test_init_callback'); }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's the problem where if test_init_callback is never hit then the common.mustCall() will never run. Instead you'll need to do it like this:
const oninitMustCall = common.mustCall(() => { throw new Error('test_init_callback'); });
switch (process.argv[2]) {
case 'test_init_callback':
initHooks({ oninit: oninitMustCall }).enable();There was a problem hiding this comment.
😕 But IMO the actual intention here is just to ensure that the common.mustCall() will run only when the test_init_callback case is hit? Every switch case will be hit in different process because of spawnSync()s below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But IMO the actual intention here is just to ensure that the
common.mustCall()will run only when the test_init_callback case is hit?
Whoops. Missed that. You're correct.
| @@ -9,9 +9,21 @@ const { AsyncResource } = async_hooks; | |||
| const initHooks = require('./init-hooks'); | |||
| const { checkInvocations } = require('./hook-checks'); | |||
|
|
|||
| // Verify that if there is no registered hook, then those invalid parameters | |||
| // won't be checked. | |||
| assert.doesNotThrow(() => new AsyncResource()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I screwed up the logic here. It shouldn't return early before the arguments are checked. Otherwise it'll cause an async hook stack corruption. Here's the minimal test case:
new (require('async_hooks').AsyncResource)().emitBefore();Here's the diff for the fix. Feel free to add it to this PR along with the above test case:
diff --git a/lib/async_hooks.js b/lib/async_hooks.js
index d5d5407..aec73ed 100644
--- a/lib/async_hooks.js
+++ b/lib/async_hooks.js
@@ -205,15 +205,15 @@ class AsyncResource {
}
this[trigger_id_symbol] = triggerId;
- // Return immediately if there's nothing to do.
- if (async_hook_fields[kInit] === 0)
- return;
-
if (typeof type !== 'string' || type.length <= 0)
throw new TypeError('type must be a string with length > 0');
if (!Number.isSafeInteger(triggerId) || triggerId < 0)
throw new RangeError('triggerId must be an unsigned integer');
+ // Return immediately if there's nothing to do.
+ if (async_hook_fields[kInit] === 0)
+ return;
+
processing_hook = true;
for (var i = 0; i < active_hooks_array.length; i++) {
if (typeof active_hooks_array[i][init_symbol] === 'function') {There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, i'll do it in this PR :=)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@trevnorris Done, added the diff to this PR, PTAL :=)
|
|
||
| switch (process.argv[2]) { | ||
| case 'test_invalid_async_id': | ||
| async_hooks.emitBefore(-1); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To make sure these run I' possibly do this:
const emitBeforeMustCall = common.mustCall(() => async_hooks.emitBefore(-1));
switch (process.argv[2]) {
case 'test_invalid_async_id':
emitBeforeMustCall();
|
Needs a rebase (just tried locally it goes smooth) |
DavidCai1111
force-pushed
the
test/async-hook-coverage
branch
from
d44fb25
to
69098bb
Compare
|
@refack I rebased it locally and the result shows that it goes very smooth 😃 |
Apparently GitHub is a whiny little ... |
|
@refack Now no conflicts checking and CI both seems good ... |
|
@trevnorris PTAL |
|
@DavidCai1993 Much thanks for the fix. |
|
Landed in 35353a4 |
PR-URL: #13336 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Andreas Madsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #13336 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Andreas Madsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <[email protected]>
PR-URL: nodejs#13378 Refs: nodejs#13340 Refs: nodejs#13336 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Andreas Madsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: João Reis <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #13378 Refs: #13340 Refs: #13336 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Andreas Madsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: João Reis <[email protected]>
lib/async_hooks.jstest/async_hooks/test-embedder.api.async-event.*.jstotest/async_hooks/test-embedder.api.async-resource.*.jsChecklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
async_hooks