Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] t4018: add tests for javascript export type function declarations

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Jun 26, 2025, 06:21 UTC
Message-ID: <df3f9190-79cd-49d6-934c-a67a2c0c9f0d@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20250623090538.154858-5-derick.william.moraes@gmail.com>

Many of the cases are not valid tests. In particular the word "ChangeMe" must occur *only once* and *after* the line with "RIGHT" and there must be at least one unchanged line before it. (I wonder how these tests could have passed. Do we have a flaw in the test driver?)

Show 9 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/t4018/javascript-dotexpors-async-anonymous-function b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexpors-async-anonymous-function
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..9f970a2343
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexpors-async-anonymous-function
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +exports.RIGHT = async function(a, b) {
> +    return a + b; // ChangeMe
> +};

Here.

Show 9 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-anonymous-function b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-anonymous-function
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..2fa9775c95
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-anonymous-function
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +exports.RIGHT = function(a, b) {
> +    return a + b; //ChangeMe
> +};

Here.

Show 7 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-arrow-function-3 b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-arrow-function-3
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..cc3f1ec017
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t4018/javascript-dotexports-arrow-function-3
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +exports.RIGHT = a => a+1; //ChangeMe

Here.

And many more. You see the pattern.

Show 8 quoted lines

> +++ b/t/t4018/javascript-module-dotexports-generator-function
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +module.exports.RIGHT = function* ChangeMe() {
> +
> +    yield 1;
> +    yield 2;
> +}
> \ No newline at end of file

An incomplete last line, again. Please look at the patch text that you are going to submit. Don't depend on reviewers' to notice such obvious glitches.

I haven't found enough time for a complete review, yet. Please submit a patch series that does not depend on an earlier round.

Splitting the test cases in separate patches is a good idea. I think you have chosen a split that excercises different hunk header patterns. But in this case, it would also be feasible and helpful to exclude the pattern from the earlier patch and add the pattern and the corresponding test cases in the same commit.

-- Hannes