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.

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

Jump to bottom

test: skip test-fs-access if root #29092

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test: skip test-fs-access if root #29092

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions test/parallel/test-fs-access.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@
// and the errors thrown from these APIs include the desired properties

const common = require('../common');
if (!common.isWindows && process.getuid() === 0)
common.skip('as this test should not be run as `root`');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Totally optional suggestion:

Suggested change
common.skip('as this test should not be run as `root`');
common.skip('test needs to be run as an unprivileged user');

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, I like your suggestion and I'm happy to change this. But perhaps this should be done in a follow up PR as there are a couple of these skips that I've added in the past with this wording and changing them all would make the output more consistent. Does that sound alright?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, that sounds fine. It was a totally optional suggestion anyway and I wouldn't mind if you ignored it completely. Do it now, do it later, don't do it at all, it's all good by me.


const assert = require('assert');
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
Expand Down