display of test_runner table

[Medhansh404]

The issue #51299 about the incomplete file names should be addressed by these changes in the PR

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[benjamingr]

Thanks! Please add a test and update existing ones for coverage table output

[Medhansh404]

I'm sorry but I have not made formal tests supporting a PR before this, this is kinda embarrasing but i am eager to learn, can you guide me so that i can learn doing it like in a formal way. thanks in advanvce :)

[pulkit-30]

Hey @Medhansh404, you can take reference from test/parallel/test-runner-coverage.js, and don't be embarrassed for asking help.

[MoLow]

I'm sorry but I have not made formal tests supporting a PR before this, this is kinda embarrasing but i am eager to learn, can you guide me so that i can learn doing it like in a formal way. thanks in advanvce :)

its totally ok. I beileve this code is covered by some tests, I ran the tests for this PR and I believe they would fail

[atlowChemi]

Overall LGTM, please use primordials

[MoLow]

@Medhansh404 please remove merge commits.

[MoLow]

isnt this still in use in the uncoverd lines cell?

[Medhansh404]

The suggested pad change was passed as an argument in the function already similar to the getCell function here, still I committed the changes suggested, for this I have added the truncating line again.

[atlowChemi]

Nice work @Medhansh404!
In order for the CI to work properly, the branch can't have merge commits (such as 2050255 and 501c311)
Please rebase the branch so we could start the CI, let me know if you need any help with that 🙂

[ljharb]

this should probably use ArrayPrototypeForEach instead of for..of

[aduh95]

Or alternatively, a simple classic for loop

node/doc/contributing/primordials.md

Lines 134 to 202 in b044369

	### Unsafe array iteration
	There are many usual practices in JavaScript that rely on iteration. It's useful
	to be aware of them when dealing with arrays (or `TypedArray`s) in core as array
	iteration typically calls several user-mutable methods. This sections lists the
	most common patterns in which ECMAScript code relies non-explicitly on array
	iteration and how to avoid it.
	<details>
	<summary>Avoid for-of loops on arrays</summary>
	```js
	for (const item of array) {
	console.log(item);
	}
	```
	This code is internally expanded into something that looks like:
	```js
	{
	// 1. Lookup @@iterator property on `array` (user-mutable if user-provided).
	// 2. Lookup @@iterator property on %Array.prototype% (user-mutable).
	// 3. Call that function.
	const iterator = array[Symbol.iterator]();
	// 1. Lookup `next` property on `iterator` (doesn't exist).
	// 2. Lookup `next` property on %ArrayIteratorPrototype% (user-mutable).
	// 3. Call that function.
	let { done, value: item } = iterator.next();
	while (!done) {
	console.log(item);
	// Repeat.
	({ done, value: item } = iterator.next());
	}
	}
	```
	Instead of utilizing iterators, you can use the more traditional but still very
	performant `for` loop:
	```js
	for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
	console.log(array[i]);
	}
	```
	The following code snippet illustrates how user-land code could impact the
	behavior of internal modules:
	```js
	// User-land
	Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator] = () => ({
	next: () => ({ done: true }),
	});
	// Core
	let forOfLoopBlockExecuted = false;
	let forLoopBlockExecuted = false;
	const array = [1, 2, 3];
	for (const item of array) {
	forOfLoopBlockExecuted = true;
	}
	for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
	forLoopBlockExecuted = true;
	}
	console.log(forOfLoopBlockExecuted); // false
	console.log(forLoopBlockExecuted); // true
	```

[Medhansh404]

Thanks @aduh95 i'll probably stick to the classic loop of the format for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { console.log(array[i]); } thanks for the reference !! :)

[ljharb]

pad should now be a boolean here, not a function

[MoLow]

In general, LGTM. please squash/remove the merge commits

[Medhansh404]

Sorry for the inconvenience, i was learning about git squash and merge command and i made changes in the main branch. Should I close the PR or is there a way to revert back?

[aduh95]

You don't need to close the PR, here's the quickest way to fix your branch:

git fetch https://github.com/nodejs/node.git HEAD
git reset FETCH_HEAD --soft
git commit
git push --force-with-lease

This will create a single new commit on top of main, which you can then force push to this branch (which will erase all the 92 commits that are in it right now).