Christopher Hiller

no, you're right, it still exists.. it's just that the function doesn't seem to be meaningfully tested in any way. well, we need tests for it, then we need to...

also: don't rely on the wiki for documentation if you can help it. if you don't see an API mentioned on mochajs.org, you probably don't want to use it. the...

OK, so: 1. I've confirmed this doesn't work with "after all" (`after`) hooks. 1. I have _not_ confirmed that it _should_ work with `after` hooks. 1. I'm going to guess...

I wonder if @evaline-ju would be interested in this one

@papb to be clear, rewriting your example as this works: ```js const assert = require('assert'); describe('First test block', function() { afterEach(function() { // I know this code doesn't make sense...

It _also_ looks like this does not provide a reasonable stack trace. I'm going to guess that's because the error is never thrown and the stack is not created. You'd...

yeah, dunno if that one will ever be addressed. the intent of hooks is not as a place to put assertions, though many people seem to want to. in many...

I don't think a new option is on the table. it's just not going to impact enough users to justify the maintenance cost. if you need to make the same...

Hmm. What's the problem with putting the loop _inside_ your test?

I agree it's weird. `Function`-typed values, `null`, `undefined`, `Date`, `Buffer`, and circular references (`[Circular]`) all display this way. Strings use double-quotes, but numbers (including `Infinity`) and booleans are bare. A...