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.

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

assert: add deep equal check for more Error type #51805

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 12, 2024

Conversation

kylo5aby
Copy link
Contributor

add deep equal check for the cases below:

  1. Error with cause property: new Error('msg', { cause: xxx })
  2. AggregateError: new AggregateError([err1, err2, ...], 'msg')

Fixes: #51793

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. util Issues and PRs related to the built-in util module. labels Feb 19, 2024
Copy link
Member

@BridgeAR BridgeAR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is already looking very promising!

The documentation still needs an update (we describe what properties we check in addition to enumerable ones) and I left improvement suggestions for edge cases.

return false;
}
if (val1 instanceof AggregateError && val2 instanceof AggregateError) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The instanceof check will work in most cases while it would not detect AggregateErrors created in a different context/realm (e.g., by creating errors in a context created by vm.createContext()). I believe it is fine to just always check for this property, in case it is not already an enumerable property.

This check would currently miss the case, if either side is an AggregateError and the other is not. That could be addressed in a similar way as I suggested above about the enumerable property.

@@ -237,9 +238,15 @@ function innerDeepEqual(val1, val2, strict, memos) {
// is otherwise identical.
if ((!isNativeError(val2) && !(val2 instanceof Error)) ||
val1.message !== val2.message ||
val1.name !== val2.name) {
val1.name !== val2.name ||
!innerDeepEqual(val1.cause, val2.cause, strict, memos)) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is definitely the right check as long the property is non-enumerable. If it is enumerable, we'd do the check twice and this could be costly and a lot of errors are created in the wild with a cause property set as an enumerable one.

In addition, we should also verify that the properties have the same enumerability. We don't yet do that for name and message, but that would be beneficial.

const cause1Enumerable = ObjectPrototypePropertyIsEnumerable(val1, 'cause');
if (cause1Enumerable !== ObjectPrototypePropertyIsEnumerable(val2, 'cause') ||
    !cause1Enumerable &&
    !innerDeepEqual(val1.cause, val2.cause, strict, memos)) {
    return false;
}
const e3 = new Error('e1');
const e4 = new AggregateError([e1, e2], 'Aggregate Error');
const e5 = new AggregateError([e1], 'Aggregate Error');
const e6 = new AggregateError([e1, e2], 'Aggregate Error');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit (just a general suggestion without need to follow-up upon): the variable names could be changed in a way that it's clearer what they stand for. E.g., this one could be:

Suggested change
const e6 = new AggregateError([e1, e2], 'Aggregate Error');
const e4duplicate = new AggregateError([e1, e2], 'Aggregate Error');

That way it would be easy to understand in the comparison that the entries are meant to be identical.

@kylo5aby kylo5aby force-pushed the assert-error-type-compare branch 2 times, most recently from bd5f30d to bcf4e54 Compare February 20, 2024 04:13
@kylo5aby
Copy link
Contributor Author

@BridgeAR Thanks for your suggestion!

@kylo5aby
Copy link
Contributor Author

@BridgeAR, I have update based on Non-Enumerable properties on Error, PTAL feel free

Comment on lines +247 to +250
if ((message1Enumerable !== ObjectPrototypePropertyIsEnumerable(val2, 'message') ||
(!message1Enumerable && val1.message !== val2.message)) ||
(name1Enumerable !== ObjectPrototypePropertyIsEnumerable(val2, 'name') ||
(!name1Enumerable && val1.name !== val2.name)) ||
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As far as I can tell, this means now we only compare the name and message fields when they are enumerable, which specificaly opposite from the documentation, and is a breaking change...

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kylo5aby kylo5aby Mar 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As far as I can tell, this means now we only compare the name and message fields when they are enumerable, which specificaly opposite from the documentation, and is a breaking change...

FWIK, As mentioned in ECMAScript 2025, name, message, cause and errors are all non-enumerable, so in the judgement above, I just compared the attributes whether they have same enumerable property, if it's same and they are non-enumerable, then compare the attributes contents.

So if the attributes are enumerable(for example in a custom Error), the next check keyCheck will check them, in the doc change, I have just added errors, and causes attributes, and didn't change name and message, I think its doesn't break the doc, have I missed something?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it was a breaking change, I would expect we would see test failures.

@kylo5aby
Copy link
Contributor Author

Copy link
Member

@legendecas legendecas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would you mind adding an item to the change list in the YAML frontmatter as well? Such as:

<!-- YAML
changes:
  - version: REPLACEME
    pr-url: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/51805
    description: Error cause property is now compared as well.
--->
doc/api/assert.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
const e2 = new Error('err', { cause: new Error('cause e2') });
assertNotDeepOrStrict(e1, e2, AssertionError);
assertNotDeepOrStrict(e1, new Error('err'), AssertionError);
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e1, new Error('err', { cause: new Error('cause e1') }), AssertionError);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

assertDeepAndStrictEqual only accepts two arguments.

Suggested change
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e1, new Error('err', { cause: new Error('cause e1') }), AssertionError);
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e1, new Error('err', { cause: new Error('cause e1') }));
const e4 = new AggregateError([e1], 'Aggregate Error');
assertNotDeepOrStrict(e1, e3, AssertionError);
assertNotDeepOrStrict(e3, e4, AssertionError);
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e3, e3duplicate, AssertionError);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e3, e3duplicate, AssertionError);
assertDeepAndStrictEqual(e3, e3duplicate);
@legendecas legendecas added the assert Issues and PRs related to the assert subsystem. label Mar 18, 2024
@kylo5aby kylo5aby force-pushed the assert-error-type-compare branch 3 times, most recently from f93555c to 5f48ab0 Compare March 18, 2024 10:30
* [`Error`][] names and messages are always compared, even if these are not
enumerable properties.
* [`Error`][] names, messages and causes are always compared, even if these are
not enumerable properties. For `AggregateError`, non-enumerable property
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe the actual behavior unconditionally compares the errors property regardless of whether the error instance is an AggregateError or not. This could be reworded as

* [`Error`][] names, messages, causes, and errors are always compared, even if these are not enumerable properties.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Resolved. Thanks for the reminder

@aduh95 aduh95 added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. labels May 11, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label May 11, 2024
@aduh95 aduh95 added the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label May 12, 2024
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot removed the commit-queue Add this label to land a pull request using GitHub Actions. label May 12, 2024
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot merged commit c8a4f70 into nodejs:main May 12, 2024
58 checks passed
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Landed in c8a4f70

targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
PR-URL: #51805
Fixes: #51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
marco-ippolito pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2024
PR-URL: #51805
Fixes: #51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
marco-ippolito pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2024
PR-URL: #51805
Fixes: #51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
marco-ippolito pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2024
PR-URL: #51805
Fixes: #51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
eliphazb pushed a commit to eliphazb/node that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2024
PR-URL: nodejs#51805
Fixes: nodejs#51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
bmeck pushed a commit to bmeck/node that referenced this pull request Jun 22, 2024
PR-URL: nodejs#51805
Fixes: nodejs#51793
Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
assert Issues and PRs related to the assert subsystem. author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. util Issues and PRs related to the built-in util module.
6 participants