Skip to content

test: improve test coverage for n-api #12327

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

Closed
mhdawson wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

test: improve test coverage for n-api #12327

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
468a485
test: improve test coverage for n-api
mhdawson Apr 11, 2017
3e6b4a5
squash: address first set of comments
mhdawson Apr 11, 2017
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
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions test/addons-napi/test_handle_scope/binding.gyp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
{
"targets": [
{
"target_name": "test_handle_scope",
"sources": [ "test_handle_scope.c" ]
}
]
}
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions test/addons-napi/test_handle_scope/test.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
'use strict';
const common = require('../../common');
const assert = require('assert');

// testing handle scope api calls
const test_handle_scope =
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig Apr 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you use camelCase in the JS code.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@mhdawson mhdawson Apr 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure just copied other existing test as a base, but that's not a good reason :). Updating

require(`./build/${common.buildType}/test_handle_scope`);

test_handle_scope.NewScope();
assert.ok(test_handle_scope.NewScopeEscape() instanceof Object);
42 changes: 42 additions & 0 deletions test/addons-napi/test_handle_scope/test_handle_scope.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
#include <node_api.h>
#include "../common.h"
#include <string.h>

// these tests validate the handle scope functions in the normal
// flow. Forcing gc behaviour to fully validate they are doing
// the right right thing would be quite hard so we keep it
// simple for now.

napi_value NewScope(napi_env env, napi_callback_info info) {
napi_handle_scope scope;
napi_value output = NULL;

NAPI_CALL(env, napi_open_handle_scope(env, &scope));
NAPI_CALL(env, napi_create_object(env, &output));
NAPI_CALL(env, napi_close_handle_scope(env, scope));
return NULL;
}

napi_value NewScopeEscape(napi_env env, napi_callback_info info) {
napi_escapable_handle_scope scope;
napi_value output = NULL;
napi_value escapee = NULL;

NAPI_CALL(env, napi_open_escapable_handle_scope(env, &scope));
NAPI_CALL(env, napi_create_object(env, &output));
NAPI_CALL(env, napi_escape_handle(env, scope, output, &escapee));
NAPI_CALL(env, napi_close_escapable_handle_scope(env, scope));
return escapee;
}

void Init(napi_env env, napi_value exports, napi_value module, void* priv) {
napi_property_descriptor properties[] = {
DECLARE_NAPI_PROPERTY("NewScope", NewScope),
DECLARE_NAPI_PROPERTY("NewScopeEscape", NewScopeEscape),
};

NAPI_CALL_RETURN_VOID(env, napi_define_properties(
env, exports, sizeof(properties) / sizeof(*properties), properties));
}

NAPI_MODULE(addon, Init)