Skip to content

test: replace port in dgram cd address empty test #12929

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
arturgvieira-zz wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test: replace port in dgram cd address empty test #12929

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
test: replace port in dgram cd address empty test 
Replaced common.PORT in the following test.
test-dgram-send-callback-buffer-empty-address.js

Ref: #12376
  • Loading branch information
@vieiraarturg
vieiraarturg committed May 11, 2017
commit 459f7936912558d44a268efd84d99555631cab4c
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion test/parallel/test-dgram-send-callback-buffer-empty-address.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ const onMessage = common.mustCall(function(err, bytes) {
client.close();
});

client.send(buf, common.PORT, onMessage);
client.bind(0, () => client.send(buf, client.address().port, onMessage));
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Trott Trott May 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably a good idea to wrap the callback in common.mustCall().

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig May 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not a bad idea. onMessage() is wrapped in a mustCall(), so in this case not strictly necessary. No strong preference.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Trott Trott May 11, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, yeah, if onMessage is already wrapped then the additional wrapping suggested by me above is actually not needed.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lpinca lpinca May 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I also find common.mustCall() a bit redundant here which is the reason why I didn't suggest it in the first place.