test_runner: support custom message for expectFailure

[Han5991]

Summary

This PR enhances the expectFailure option in the test runner to accept different types of values, enabling both custom failure labels and robust error validation. This implementation is referenced from and inspired by nodejs/test-runner#10.

Changes

The expectFailure option now supports the following types:

• String: Treated as a failure label (reason).

  test('bug', { expectFailure: 'Investigating' }, ...);

• RegExp / Function / Error Class: Treated as a matcher to validate the thrown error (similar to assert.throws).

  test('regex', { expectFailure: /error message/ }, ...);
  test('class', { expectFailure: RangeError }, ...);

• Object:

  • If it contains label or match properties, it's treated as a configuration object.

    test('config', {
      expectFailure: {
        label: 'Known issue',
        match: /specific error/
      }
    }, ...);

  • Otherwise, it's treated as an object matcher (properties matching).

• Inheritance:

  • Tests now inherit expectFailure from their parent suite. This allows marking an entire suite as expected to fail.

    test('suite', { expectFailure: true }, async (t) => {
      await t.test('subtest', () => { throw new Error(); }); // Passes (expected failure)
    });

References

• Based on concepts from: doc(proposal): expectFailure label and/or matcher test-runner#10

Resolves: #61570

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/test_runner

[JakobJingleheimer]

We already have a plan for the value of expectFail: it will soon accept a regular expression to match against.

[Han5991]

We already gave a plan for the value of expectFail: it will soon accept a regular expression to match against.

@JakobJingleheimer
Ah, thanks for the context! I missed that there was an existing plan for error matching.

In that case, I'd be happy to pivot this PR to implement the expectFailure validation logic (accepting a string/regex to match the error) instead of just a message. Does that sound good, or is there someone else already working on it?"

[JakobJingleheimer]

@vassudanagunta you were part of the original discussion; did you happen to start an implementation?

To my knowledge though, no-one has started.

I had planned to pick it up next week, but if you would like to do, go ahead.

If you do, I think it would probably be better to start a new PR than to pivot this one. So open a draft and I'll add it to the test-runner team's kanban board so it gets proper visibility.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.95181% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.75%. Comparing base (da5efc4) to head (4c7bb37).
⚠️ Report is 26 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/internal/test_runner/test.js	87.80%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #61563      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.84%   89.75%   +0.91%     
==========================================
  Files         674      674              
  Lines      204957   205682     +725     
  Branches    39309    39438     +129     
==========================================
+ Hits       182087   184607    +2520     
+ Misses      15088    13316    -1772     
+ Partials     7782     7759      -23     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/test_runner/reporter/tap.js	94.88% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/internal/test_runner/test.js	96.85% <87.80%> (-0.49%)	⬇️

... and 182 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[vassudanagunta]

@JakobJingleheimer nope, haven't started this, though I had long ago implemented it in node-test-extra (not yet released).

I think it's important to get the requirements nailed. IMHO, #61570.

[JakobJingleheimer]

As I said, let's put together a proposal in the nodejs/test_runner repo 🙂

[ljharb]

reviewed before reading the discussion; imo a string should work as in this PR whether or not it also supports accepting a regex.

[JakobJingleheimer]

It could do. My concern is supporting this without considering the intended regex feature accidentally precluding that intended feature, or inadvertently creating a breaking change, or creating heavily conflicting PRs (very frustrating for the implementators).

I think we can likely get both; we can easily avoid those problems with a quick proposal so everyone is on the same page 🙂

---

I should start a discussion in that repo?

Please start a proposal like the ones already in that repo 🙂 https://github.com/nodejs/test-runner/tree/main/proposals we can discuss it in that PR

[ljharb]

conflicts fair; as long as the "should expect failure" uses truthiness (does an empty string count as true or false, though?), i can't foresee any semantic collision.

[Han5991]

@ljharb @vassudanagunta

I've opened a proposal PR in the test-runner repository as suggested by @JakobJingleheimer.
It would be great to continue the discussion on the spec details there:
nodejs/test-runner#10

[vassudanagunta]

I think this needs to be documented a little better for the user.

[JakobJingleheimer]

@Han5991 the proposal isn't finished / accepted yet (still hasn't been reviewed by the rest of the test-runner team), so I think it's premature to resume this (the proposal isn't a requirement, but I think it's a good idea and will reduce churn, needless re-reviews, etc—and indeed, there was just earlier today another adjustment to align terms). I do appreciate the enthusiasm 😁

It's added to the team's agenda, so it'll get raised at the next meeting.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/71464/

[nodejs-github-bot]

Commit Queue failed

- Loading data for nodejs/node/pull/61563
✔  Done loading data for nodejs/node/pull/61563
----------------------------------- PR info ------------------------------------
Title      test_runner: support custom message for expectFailure (#61563)
Author     sangwook <rewq5991@gmail.com> (@Han5991)
Branch     Han5991:test-runner/support-getxfail-message -> nodejs:main
Labels     needs-ci, commit-queue-squash, test_runner
Commits    2
 - test_runner: expose expectFailure message
 - test_runner: fix empty object test assert logic
Committers 1
 - sangwook <rewq5991@gmail.com>
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61563
Fixes: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/61570
Reviewed-By: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Aviv Keller <me@aviv.sh>
Reviewed-By: Jacob Smith <jacob@frende.me>
------------------------------ Generated metadata ------------------------------
PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61563
Fixes: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/61570
Reviewed-By: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Aviv Keller <me@aviv.sh>
Reviewed-By: Jacob Smith <jacob@frende.me>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ℹ  This PR was created on Wed, 28 Jan 2026 14:50:42 GMT
   ✔  Approvals: 3
   ✔  - Jordan Harband (@ljharb): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61563#pullrequestreview-3719402319
   ✔  - Aviv Keller (@avivkeller): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61563#pullrequestreview-3723610081
   ✔  - Jacob Smith (@JakobJingleheimer): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61563#pullrequestreview-3857218091
   ✘  Last GitHub CI failed
   ℹ  Last Full PR CI on 2026-02-26T09:15:39Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/71464/
- Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/71464/
✔  Build data downloaded
   ✔  Last Jenkins CI successful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ✔  Aborted `git node land` session in /home/runner/work/node/node/.ncu

https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/22437607383

[Han5991]

@JakobJingleheimer

It seems like github ci failed. Should I try running it again with rebase?

[JakobJingleheimer]

CI didn't actually fail though. Earlier this morning I asked one of the CI maintainers; I'm waiting to hear back.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Landed in 2e1265a