test: minor replace var by const

[scips]

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

test

Description of change

[cjihrig]

LGTM. Could you update the commit message to reference the specific test?

[scips]

@cjihrig changed to test: replace var by const test-tls-zero-clear-in

[cjihrig]

Thanks. CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4083/

[imyller]

CI failures with arm-fanned are unrelated.

[imyller]

LGTM

[benjamingr]

I thought we were against these sort of changes and that they were churn unless they introduce changes that are not changes from var to const.

[imyller]

@benjamingr This is related to nodejs/code-and-learn#56 (comment)

I'll start the process of landing this.

[imyller]

landed in 5f4bc59

Thank you for your contribution, @scips

[addaleax]

I thought we were against these sort of changes and that they were churn unless they introduce changes that are not changes from var to const.

Although I don’t have any strong feelings about this: Yes, that was more or less my impression, too. I think the problematic effects are definitely smaller for test files, and overall I’m sorry for not being prepared for the number of attendees and falling back to a more ad-hoc way of distributing first contributions that may have led to some unclarity as to what would be considered a proper change and what not.

I do think the value of having gained quite a few people who are now familiar with the contribution process is non-negligible, though.

@benjamingr This is related to nodejs/code-and-learn#56 (comment)

I’m not sure if @benjamingr’s comment was meant as an objection, but if so, maybe landing this was a bit premature?

[benjamingr]

@addaleax @imyller it was not an objection, I was just not playing really close attention and was surprised. If this is meant as a way to get people more acquainted with our code base and getting contributors I'm definitely in favor of it 👍

[imyller]

I’m not sure if @benjamingr’s comment was meant as an objection, but if so, maybe landing this was a bit premature?

Good point @addaleax.

I personally didn't read his comment as an objection to this specific PR (in wider context of other code+learn PRs), but definitely try be more sensitive when evaluating feedbacks in other PRs. Thank you.

I've taken up the task of landing these code+learn session contributions and I've tried to be bit more forgiving to new contributors about minor details (commit title wording) and fix those in the landing process. Hopefully thats ok?

[addaleax]

I've taken up the task of landing these code+learn session contributions and I've tried to be bit more forgiving to new contributors about minor details (commit title wording) and fix those in the landing process. Hopefully thats ok?

Imho, that is not only ok, that is awesome. 👍