Handle SIGSEGV about ava HOT 12 CLOSED

This will probably be easier when #1 is implemented. AVA will then run tests in separate sub-processes.

from ava.

That'll prevent coverage tests from working.

from ava.

No: https://github.com/bcoe/nyc

from ava.

👍 Starred. Istanbul is what I use and it doesn't; figured that was a global thing.

from ava.

Should AVA already work with nyc? Trying it out right now but it reports no coverage at all which is quite odd.

from ava.

We want AVA to work with it, but I haven't tested. Not a top priority right now as we're focusing on finishing the API and performance. Happy to receive some help debugging/PR/etc, though.

from ava.

@Qix- We're now forking each test file. Any recommendation on how we should handle this?

from ava.

No idea how signals work with threads. Id have to do some research.

from ava.

@Qix- We're not using threads (there are no threads in JS), but subprocesses.

from ava.

Well right. I'd assume each fork would have to register its own signals. I've never done that before, but I'm pretty sure it's analogous to how it works on the native level. And then there's windows...

from ava.

fork in the Node.js sense is just a spawned Node.js process with an IPC channel. So it's just a normal child process with normal process signals. I think the best solution here is to just do nothing. If a test file has a SIGSEGV it will just fail the test file, not all the test files.

from ava.

Fair enough. It's an edge case but maybe when the core is a little more stable in terms of the other forking issues that are open, perhaps we can reconsider this. 👍

from ava.