Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is more lenient. The test will still pass if the old message is returned right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but for this particular one, the message never included the
or Buffer
, that was a mis-edit that was missed when the buffers-in-fs pr was landed.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@thefourtheye Just in case there's a misunderstanding: This is not more lenient than the current test, although it appears more lenient thanks to the unfortunate way the
assert.throws()
API works.The way it is without this PR, any throw will result in the test passing. The string (
'path must be a string or Buffer'
) is not checked at all. Instead, that string is used as the message provided by theAssertionError
that fires if the function does not throw. Fun, right?Changing it to a RegExp the way this PR does means that it will be used to confirm the message in the
Error
thrown by the function, which is probably what was intended in the first place.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PR to document that pitfall: #6029
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool, Thanks :-)