Skip to content

test_runner: support custom message for expectFailure #61563

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

Open
Han5991 wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+116 −4
Open

test_runner: support custom message for expectFailure #61563

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5a15080
test_runner: support custom message for expectFailure
Han5991 Jan 28, 2026
13aedaa
doc: improve expectFailure example message
Han5991 Jan 28, 2026
cd8b5aa
test_runner: enhance expectFailure with validation support
Han5991 Jan 29, 2026
67a4a61
test_runner: enhance expectFailure with validation support
Han5991 Jan 29, 2026
b6060db
test_runner: alias assert.throws to fix lint error
Han5991 Jan 29, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 16 additions & 0 deletions doc/api/test.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -245,6 +245,19 @@ it.expectFailure('should do the thing', () => {
it('should do the thing', { expectFailure: true }, () => {
assert.strictEqual(doTheThing(), true);
});

it('should do the thing', { expectFailure: 'feature not implemented' }, () => {
assert.strictEqual(doTheThing(), true);
});

it('should fail with specific error', {
expectFailure: {
with: /error message/,
message: 'reason for failure',
},
Comment on lines +254 to +257
Copy link
Contributor

@vassudanagunta vassudanagunta Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like these field names the most compared to all the other ideas 👍🏾. Put it in the proposal?

Copy link
Contributor

@vassudanagunta vassudanagunta Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(i only just learned that pressing the comment button is not enough. you have to then submit the comment. this is a really bad GitHub UX)

Copy link
Contributor

@vassudanagunta vassudanagunta Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The following are equivalent, yes?

expectFailure: 'reason for failure'

expectFailure: {message: 'reason for failure'}

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Han5991 Han5991 Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated the proposal based on the feedback:

  • Added support for Direct Matchers (e.g., expectFailure: /error/).
  • Clarified that with is for validation and message is for reasoning.
  • Noted that expectFailure: 'reason' and { message: 'reason' } are equivalent.

Copy link
Contributor

@vassudanagunta vassudanagunta Jan 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added support for Direct Matchers (e.g., expectFailure: /error/).

This means that the following are also equivalent, yes?

expectFailure: /error/

expectFailure: {with: /error/}

and likewise any other value type accepted by assert.throws, yes?

Copy link
Contributor

@vassudanagunta vassudanagunta Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Similarly, the following are also equivalent, yes?

expectFailure: true

expectFailure: {}

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Han5991 Han5991 Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, exactly.

Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should it be? Passing an empty object seems like an error to me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Han5991 Han5991 Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Logic-wise, I viewed {} as a container for constraints. An empty container implies 'no constraints', which naturally maps to true (allow any error). This aligns with how pattern matching often works.

However, I see your point about intent. Passing {} explicitly is redundant if true exists, and blocking it could prevent
accidental empty configs. If we want to be strict to avoid user error, I'm okay with disallowing {}.

Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb Jan 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's always better to be strict imo; it's semver-major to add an error but semver-patch to remove it. We should throw if anything remotely weird happens, and if people have a legit use case for it, we can easily allow it.

}, () => {
assert.strictEqual(doTheThing(), true);
});
```

`skip` and/or `todo` are mutually exclusive to `expectFailure`, and `skip` or `todo`
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1677,6 +1690,9 @@ changes:
thread. If `false`, only one test runs at a time.
If unspecified, subtests inherit this value from their parent.
**Default:** `false`.
* `expectFailure` {boolean|string} If truthy, the test is expected to fail.
If a string is provided, that string is displayed in the test results as the
reason why the test is expected to fail. **Default:** `false`.
* `only` {boolean} If truthy, and the test context is configured to run
`only` tests, then this test will be run. Otherwise, the test is skipped.
**Default:** `false`.
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/tap.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ function reportTest(nesting, testNumber, status, name, skip, todo, expectFailure
} else if (todo !== undefined) {
line += ` # TODO${typeof todo === 'string' && todo.length ? ` ${tapEscape(todo)}` : ''}`;
} else if (expectFailure !== undefined) {
line += ' # EXPECTED FAILURE';
line += ` # EXPECTED FAILURE${typeof expectFailure === 'string' && expectFailure.length ? ` ${tapEscape(expectFailure)}` : ''}`;
}

line += '\n';
Expand Down
46 changes: 43 additions & 3 deletions lib/internal/test_runner/test.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ const {
once: runOnce,
setOwnProperty,
} = require('internal/util');
const assert = require('assert');
const { isPromise } = require('internal/util/types');
const {
validateAbortSignal,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -635,7 +636,13 @@ class Test extends AsyncResource {
this.plan = null;
this.expectedAssertions = plan;
this.cancelled = false;
this.expectFailure = expectFailure !== undefined && expectFailure !== false;
if (expectFailure === undefined || expectFailure === false) {
this.expectFailure = false;
} else if (typeof expectFailure === 'string' || typeof expectFailure === 'object') {
this.expectFailure = expectFailure;
} else {
this.expectFailure = true;
}
this.skipped = skip !== undefined && skip !== false;
this.isTodo = (todo !== undefined && todo !== false) || this.parent?.isTodo;
this.startTime = null;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -947,7 +954,23 @@ class Test extends AsyncResource {
return;
}

if (this.expectFailure === true) {
if (this.expectFailure) {
if (typeof this.expectFailure === 'object' &&
this.expectFailure.with !== undefined) {
const { with: validation } = this.expectFailure;
try {
const { throws } = assert;
throws(() => { throw err; }, validation);
} catch (e) {
this.passed = false;
this.error = new ERR_TEST_FAILURE(
'The test failed, but the error did not match the expected validation',
kTestCodeFailure,
);
this.error.cause = e;
return;
}
}
this.passed = true;
} else {
this.passed = false;
Expand All @@ -961,6 +984,20 @@ class Test extends AsyncResource {
return;
}

if (this.skipped || this.isTodo) {
this.passed = true;
return;
}

if (this.expectFailure) {
this.passed = false;
this.error = new ERR_TEST_FAILURE(
'Test passed but was expected to fail',
kTestCodeFailure,
);
return;
}

this.passed = true;
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1350,7 +1387,10 @@ class Test extends AsyncResource {
} else if (this.isTodo) {
directive = this.reporter.getTodo(this.message);
} else if (this.expectFailure) {
directive = this.reporter.getXFail(this.expectFailure); // TODO(@JakobJingleheimer): support specifying failure
const message = typeof this.expectFailure === 'object' ?
this.expectFailure.message :
this.expectFailure;
directive = this.reporter.getXFail(message);
}

if (this.reportedType) {
Expand Down
56 changes: 56 additions & 0 deletions test/parallel/test-runner-xfail.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
'use strict';
const common = require('../common');
const { test } = require('node:test');
const { spawn } = require('child_process');
const assert = require('node:assert');

if (process.env.CHILD_PROCESS === 'true') {
test('fail with message string', { expectFailure: 'reason string' }, () => {
assert.fail('boom');
});

test('fail with message object', { expectFailure: { message: 'reason object' } }, () => {
assert.fail('boom');
});

test('fail with validation regex', { expectFailure: { with: /boom/ } }, () => {
assert.fail('boom');
});

test('fail with validation object', { expectFailure: { with: { message: 'boom' } } }, () => {
assert.fail('boom');
});

test('fail with validation class', { expectFailure: { with: assert.AssertionError } }, () => {
assert.fail('boom');
});

test('fail with validation error (wrong error)', { expectFailure: { with: /bang/ } }, () => {
assert.fail('boom'); // Should result in real failure because error doesn't match
});

test('unexpected pass', { expectFailure: true }, () => {
// Should result in real failure because it didn't fail
});

} else {
const child = spawn(process.execPath, ['--test-reporter', 'tap', __filename], {
env: { ...process.env, CHILD_PROCESS: 'true' },
stdio: 'pipe',
});

let stdout = '';
child.stdout.setEncoding('utf8');
child.stdout.on('data', (chunk) => { stdout += chunk; });

child.on('close', common.mustCall((code) => {
// We expect exit code 1 because 'unexpected pass' and 'wrong error' should fail the test run
assert.strictEqual(code, 1);

// Check outputs
assert.match(stdout, /# EXPECTED FAILURE reason string/);
assert.match(stdout, /# EXPECTED FAILURE reason object/);
assert.match(stdout, /not ok \d+ - fail with validation error \(wrong error\)/);
assert.match(stdout, /not ok \d+ - unexpected pass/);
}));
}
Loading