test_runner: tracking issue for code coverage stabilization
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- JavaScript
- スター
- 122k
- フォーク
- 37.3k
- 平均マージ
- 4日 2時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 283
説明
This issue tracks the remaining work to move node:test code coverage out of experimental.
The previous tracker, #53924 (previous stabilization tracker), was closed after narrowing the formal remaining item to replacing or aliasing --experimental-test-coverage with --test-coverage. There are still open issues and PRs that look relevant to stabilization, so it would be useful to have an umbrella issue again.
Scope
This is about test runner coverage enabled with:
node --test --experimental-test-coverage
This is not intended to track every NODE_V8_COVERAGE issue, only the ones that materially affect confidence in node:test coverage.
Proposed stabilization checklist
Likely blockers
- Add or alias a stable
--test-coverageenable flag- historical context: #53924 — previous stabilization tracker
- Fix coverage correctness for
isolation=none- issue: #60023 — coverage with
isolation=nonedoes not work correctly - PR: #63079
- issue: #60023 — coverage with
- Fix major sourcemap correctness bugs
- #54753 — false missing coverage for TypeScript
import type - #55054 — sourcemap coverage can fail for remapped files
- #54753 — false missing coverage for TypeScript
- Confirm CLI and
run()API coverage behavior are aligned for common cases- related: #60023 —
isolation=none/ API coverage mismatch - related PR: #63079
- related: #60023 —
- Re-enable the skipped isolation coverage test in core
test/parallel/test-runner-coverage.js
Strong candidates to resolve before stabilization
- Review performance of built-in coverage
- #55103 — built-in coverage is reported as significantly slower than existing tooling
- Finalize default include/exclude behavior
- issue: #63397 — default test exclusion does not match dotfiles
- PR: #63401
- Make reporter behavior consistent where coverage is involved
- #60884 — dot reporter does not surface coverage output/failures clearly
- #61586 — ignored lines and lcov branch data are inconsistent
- PR: #63443
Likely follow-up work unless parity is required first
- Decide whether statement coverage is required before stabilization
- issue: #54530 — add statement coverage support
- PR: #62340
- Decide whether untouched files matched by include globs should report as 0%
- #58887 — support reporting untested matched files as 0% covered
- Decide whether excluding empty lines should be supported
- #60996 — add an option to exclude empty lines from coverage
Open issues most directly related to test coverage
Correctness / stabilization
- #60023 — Test runner with
isolation=nonedoes not work with coverage - #54753 —
--experimental-test-coveragefalsely reports missing coverage where TS source isimport type - #55054 — Could not report code coverage for file in sourcemap
- #55103 — Slow performances when running tests with
--experimental-test-coverage
Reporting / exclusion / polish
- #61586 —
node:coverageignore comments exclude DA but leave BRDA in lcov output - #63397 — default
--test-coverage-excludebehavior does not apply to dotfiles - #60884 — dot reporter should print coverage failures/output
- #58887 — report 0% coverage for untested files matched by include globs
- #60996 — add option to exclude empty lines from coverage report
Coverage model / parity
- #54530 — support statement coverage
Open PRs to watch
- #63079 — test_runner: support coverage with isolation:'none' via run() API
- #63401 — test_runner: match dotfiles in default coverage exclude
- #62340 — test_runner: add statement coverage support
- #63443 — test_runner: print coverage report with dot reporter
Lower-level issues worth watching
These are broader than node:test, but may still matter if they show up in test runner coverage behavior:
- #53652 — incorrect uncovered block around some
switch/ case patterns - #41387 — inconsistent coverage information when loaders are used
- #46378 —
NODE_V8_COVERAGEbehaves inconsistently with workers - #35212 — coverage may not be saved on SIGINT/SIGTERM
- #44364 —
NODE_V8_COVERAGEcan run OOM when many scripts are compiled - #35783 — V8 coverage API next steps
Proposed exit criteria
Coverage can likely move out of experimental when:
--test-coverageexists as the stable entry point.isolation=nonecoverage correctness is fixed.- The major sourcemap correctness bugs are resolved.
- CLI and
run()API behavior match for common coverage use cases. - The remaining open issues are triaged into:
- blocker for stabilization
- follow-up semver-minor work
- unrelated to stabilization
Note
This issue is meant to restore a single place to track stabilization work now that #53924 is closed, not to block future semver-minor improvements after stabilization.
Disclaimer: I used AI to compile this list, then edited by hand.
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
提案されている安定化チェックリストから始め、カバレッジコマンド node --test --experimental-test-coverage を実行します。残りのコアテスト作業の指定されたエントリーポイントは test/parallel/test-runner-coverage.js です。完了には、単独の変更を1つ行うのではなく、列挙された問題をトリアージし、複数の部分から成る終了基準を満たすことが必要です。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- javascript, nodejs
- 領域
- cli, testing-qa
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 難易度
- 5/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1週間以上
- 活発さ
- 静か
- 明瞭さ
- 説明が足りない
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 25/100