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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

test: use blocks instead of async IIFE #24989

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test: use blocks instead of async IIFE #24989

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

addaleax
Copy link
Member

Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@addaleax
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
042e36a 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@addaleax build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/1910/pipeline

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Dec 12, 2018
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

The lite CI should be sufficient here, so I add the author ready label.

@BridgeAR BridgeAR added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Dec 12, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 15, 2018 •
edited
Loading

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/19557/ ✔️

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 15, 2018

(Ran full CI because this changes many lines of executable code.)

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Dec 15, 2018

Landed in ba4466e

@Trott Trott closed this Dec 15, 2018
Trott pushed a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2018
@addaleax @Trott
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
ba4466e 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: nodejs#24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2018
@addaleax @BethGriggs
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
e04e854 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: #24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
@BethGriggs BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2018
Merged
@beevelop beevelop mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2018
Closed
refack pushed a commit to refack/node that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
@refack
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
edb1abb 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: nodejs#24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 12, 2019
@addaleax @BethGriggs
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
48c5413 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: #24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
@BethGriggs BethGriggs mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2019
Merged
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2019
@addaleax @BethGriggs
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
642e8c2 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: #24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2019
@addaleax @rvagg
test: use blocks instead of async IIFE
af89f1a 
Using an IIFE with async functions + await is equivalent
to using a block scope (aside from scoping effects
we don’t rely on), as far as I can tell.

PR-URL: #24989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@BridgeAR BridgeAR BridgeAR approved these changes

@cjihrig cjihrig cjihrig approved these changes

@targos targos targos approved these changes

@TimothyGu TimothyGu TimothyGu approved these changes

@lpinca lpinca lpinca approved these changes

@antsmartian antsmartian antsmartian approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
10 participants
@addaleax @nodejs-github-bot @BridgeAR @Trott @antsmartian @lpinca @TimothyGu @targos @cjihrig @BethGriggs