Proposal: classify uncaught errors in tests as "errors" not as "failures"

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?

Feature

What is the current behavior?

Jest treats failed assertions and uncaught errors in a test case both as failures.

What is the expected behavior?

I maintain jest-junit, a testResultsProcessor that provides valid jUnit xml files for CI & reporting systems. This spec differentiates a test failure and a test error.

A test error, according to the junit spec, is classified as:

An errored test is one that had an unanticipated problem, for example an unchecked throwable; or a problem with the implementation of the test.

What I am proposing is that Jest adds an additional test status of “error” for these cases. The current documentation for testResultsProcessors shows the following test statuses:

"status": "failed" | "pending" | "passed",

I am more than happy to contribute and willing to take this work on myself, if necessary. But before I do I wanted to get feedback from Jest maintainers and the community if this would cause problems.

Please provide your exact Jest configuration

System: OS: macOS Sierra 10.12.6 CPU: x64 Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ CPU @ 2.80GHz Binaries: Node: 8.5.0 Yarn: 1.5.1 npm: 5.3.0 npmPackages: jest: wanted: ^22.4.3 installed: 22.4.3

[ljharb]

Yes, it would be amazing if runners could inject their own statuses, and colors for those statuses.

Basically, jest is really two things that would be really nice to make more separable: a test framework (a jasmine fork) and a super awesome parallel test runner/watcher.

[SimenB]

@palmerj3 Were you able to look into it?

FWIW, I support error in addition to failed, but if we could implement it in a way which allows us to also support other statuses, such as warning, that’s be awesome.