test: use test runner in `test-report-config`

[avivkeller]

NOTE: The test started as a child_process using these flags: [
  '--report-on-fatalerror',
  '--report-on-signal',
  '--report-uncaught-exception',
  '--report-compact'
] Use NODE_SKIP_FLAG_CHECK to run the test with the original flags.
✔ Verify that the interaction between reportOnSignal and signal is correct. (1.468327ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.directory behaves properly (0.918158ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.filename behaves properly (0.20325ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.reportOnFatalError behaves properly (0.151694ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.reportOnUncaughtException behaves properly (0.275656ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.reportOnSignal behaves properly (0.164718ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.compact behaves properly (0.184926ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.excludeNetwork behaves properly (0.187271ms)
✔ Verify that process.report.signal behaves properly (0.750093ms)
ℹ tests 9
ℹ suites 0
ℹ pass 9
ℹ fail 0
ℹ cancelled 0
ℹ skipped 0
ℹ todo 0
ℹ duration_ms 11.282749

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 87.30%. Comparing base (4f1c27a) to head (1e749ca). Report is 139 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #54571      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.33%   87.30%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         649      649              
  Lines      182620   182755     +135     
  Branches    35042    35046       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits       159490   159560      +70     
- Misses      16394    16462      +68     
+ Partials     6736     6733       -3     

see 64 files with indirect coverage changes

[targos]

We should find a better way to describe the changes if these refactorings become recurrent, because this is not using the test runner (which whould be node --test)

[cjihrig]

Maybe say "node:test" instead of test runner as done in https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54585 and similar PRs.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/61635/

[avivkeller]

commit message updated :-)

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/61705/

[avivkeller]

CI is not passing. @jasnell and @anonrig appear to already be covering this base, so I'll close this.