254 tests completed in 912 milliseconds, with 0 failed, 7 skipped, and 4 todo.
819 assertions of 823 passed, 4 failed.
New:
254 tests completed in 0.9 seconds, with 0 failed, 7 skipped, and 4 todo.
Remove raw assertion count
In short, assertions are too low-level and include confusing/distracting mention of failures that are not actually failures (but assertions in a todo test). Plus, it competes for attention and space when there is already a summary that is adequate on its own.
The raw data remains available via QUnit.config.stats.{all,bad} for use in integrations and plugins, although this is undocumented and not encouraged. The recommendation is to use the runEnd and its stable test counts instead,
https://qunitjs.com/api/callbacks/QUnit.on/#the-runend-event.
Report time as seconds
This is a more human-scale number. Rounding is opionated. I went with 1 digit of precision, and thus reporting 123ms as 0.1s. For number smaller than 100ms, I opted for a longer format with at always 1 significant digit, so reporting 20ms as 0.02s, instead of e.g. forcefully rounding either down to a confusing "0.0s" or a deceptively high "0.1s". It allows for a little pride/recognition of small numbers.
QUnit 2.21.0:
New:
Remove raw assertion count
In short, assertions are too low-level and include confusing/distracting mention of failures that are not actually failures (but assertions in a todo test). Plus, it competes for attention and space when there is already a summary that is adequate on its own.
See also https://qunitjs.com/api/callbacks/QUnit.done/ for why we discourage the
detailsparameter to theQUnit.done()event.The raw data remains available via
QUnit.config.stats.{all,bad}for use in integrations and plugins, although this is undocumented and not encouraged. The recommendation is to use therunEndand its stable test counts instead, https://qunitjs.com/api/callbacks/QUnit.on/#the-runend-event.Report time as seconds
This is a more human-scale number. Rounding is opionated. I went with 1 digit of precision, and thus reporting 123ms as 0.1s. For number smaller than 100ms, I opted for a longer format with at always 1 significant digit, so reporting 20ms as 0.02s, instead of e.g. forcefully rounding either down to a confusing "0.0s" or a deceptively high "0.1s". It allows for a little pride/recognition of small numbers.