We're keeping this honest and chill, no worries.

What is "most of that "?

Why did you feel the need to produce so much detail about a single category of tests?

That's great!

It's too bad you haven't structured the commits and pull requests a bit differently so that it's easier to review the exact changes, but I hope it goes well.

For example doing the test refactorings in a first pull request, and using something like test.xfail that is first fails then after the merge succeeds (but the test code itself doesn't change).

Also I have seen some tests getting stricter, which is again not a problem, but separating to a different pull request would have improved the reviewability significantly for a runtime that many people and companies depend on.

I'm sorry you were downvoted by HN and your comment got ,,dead'', that's not the way to review things.

Don't worry, no one reviewed open source code before AI either. Basically nothing changed about the trust model.

On the other hand, the sleep fits better to the test description, "should allow reading stdout after a few milliseconds". Even if 1 != 'a few'. It's possible the part of the commit reverted here, https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/a42bf70139980c4d13cc55..., defeated the purpose of the test by removing the sleep. I don't think adding the sleep back is an example of AI cheating.

Strange test though either way.

To be fair the commit message `revert proc.exited change in spawn.test.ts` suggests the sleep was there originally.

Yeah, Claude is very creative in finding ways of "solving" problems that go against what the user probably intended.

Having said that, after looking at some of the test changes, they seem to be minor things, like changing timeouts, not changing the actual intended semantics of the tests. But it's too much code to review everything, so I might be completely wrong about that, and in real-world usage, even minor changes like these will cause issues.

How do you wash to define ad, and why does it matter? If I tell you I had lunch, I mean. okay, great. If I tell you I had a delicious Coca-Cola with my lunch, sure. If I happen to work at Coca-Cola, does that now become an ad? And what level does it become an issue? And I what is the issue?

It's OK, we'll see how it goes. He and Antropic are giving it us for free, and nowdays just forking the old version is easy if a project needs that. Even maintenance is much easier using LLMs.

I'm happy it's not a project I'm depending on, but a large enough project had to try this at some point so that we all can learn from how it goes.

I think this is why Antropic bought bun, so that they can sell big code translation as a feature for all the banks with COBOL code that they want to get rid of for a long time.

Still, those banks / enterprises won't appreciate the number of unit test changes.

And I agree with another comment that Codex xhigh is much better for these kinds of tasks, but still hard on this kind of scale.

Jared has commented on this elsewhere in the thread, basically claiming the parent you replied to is outright lying: it has removed no tests and has not meaningfully changed annotations to reduce coverage of effectiveness. It added additional tests and made a few changes to hard coded values due to differences in, as an example, how LLVM and Zig handle stack frames.

The MR is right there, linked at the top of this page. You can check who is telling the truth.

That said, I don't know how anyone is actually claiming to have done that. All day, the size of the MR makes the diff take too long to load and GitHub dies. I'll have to pull it later to check myself.