Reject a promise after a test will make test end earlier in browser mode.

[Tackoil]

Describe the bug

If a test case will make an unhandled rejection just after one test and before the next test, the cases in the other files will not be tested.

After debugging, there will post a "done" message included all test files. And It will break the next test process.

vitest/packages/browser/src/client/public/error-catcher.js

Line 69 in 4e60333

channel.postMessage({

async function reportUnexpectedError(
  type,
  error,
) {
  const processedError = serializeError(error)
  await client.waitForConnection().then(() => {
    return client.rpc.onUnhandledError(processedError, type)
  }).catch(console.error)
  const state = __vitest_browser_runner__

  if (state.type === 'orchestrator') {
    return
  }

  // `state.runTests` and `__vitest_worker__.current`  will both be `null`
  if (!state.runTests || !__vitest_worker__.current) {
    channel.postMessage({
      type: 'done',
      filenames: state.files,
      id: state.iframeId,
    })
  }
}

Reproduction

https://stackblitz.com/edit/vitest-dev-vitest-ceqdspje

This issue can also be reproduced by following steps.

1. mkdir to create a new folder, and npm init.
2. npx vitest init browser to init the test with browser mode.
3. modify test command in package.json to run vitest run.
4. make two test files as following.

import { it } from "vitest";
// Import some source file. It's necessary, but I don't know why.
import { add } from "../src/add";

it("should add two numbers", () => {
  new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    reject("test");
  });
});

5. run npm test:browser.

The result will show that only one file is tested.

 RUN  v2.1.8 /Users/<username>/Developer/vitest-playground

 ✓ test/add.test.ts (1)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Unhandled Errors ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Vitest caught 1 unhandled error during the test run.
This might cause false positive tests. Resolve unhandled errors to make sure your tests are not affected.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Unhandled Rejection ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Unknown Error: test
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

 Test Files  1 passed (1)
      Tests  1 passed (1)
     Errors  1 error
   Start at  18:22:47
   Duration  842ms (transform 0ms, setup 0ms, collect 4ms, tests 1ms, environment 0ms, prepare 191ms)

 ELIFECYCLE  Command failed with exit code 1.

System Info

System:
    OS: macOS 15.2
    CPU: (8) arm64 Apple M2
    Memory: 111.73 MB / 16.00 GB
    Shell: 5.9 - /bin/zsh
  Binaries:
    Node: 20.15.1 - ~/Library/pnpm/node
    npm: 10.7.0 - ~/Library/pnpm/npm
    pnpm: 9.15.0 - ~/Library/pnpm/pnpm
  Browsers:
    Chrome: 131.0.6778.110
    Chrome Canary: 133.0.6890.0
    Safari: 18.2
  npmPackages:
    @vitest/browser: ^2.1.8 => 2.1.8
    vitest: ^2.1.8 => 2.1.8

Used Package Manager

npm

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the docs.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Check that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A open a GitHub Discussion or join our Discord Chat Server.
• The provided reproduction is a minimal reproducible example of the bug.

[sheremet-va]

The result will show that only one file is tested.

Does it show that only one test failed? Or does it run only one test?

I think it's expected behaviour that Vitest doesn't start new tests when the environment is potentially broken which is why this safeguard mechanism exists. If we didn't have this check, Vitest could hang.

[Tackoil]

Does it show that only one test failed? Or does it run only one test?

It will run only one test, and the result of that test will be different with the actual test case. In sample above, it'll be passed.

I'm also agreed that safeguard mechanism is necessary to keep Vitest running as expected. But this handled rejection is caused by test case, not Vitest itself. It'll be better to start the following tests, and end up with unhandled error failed or exit with 0 when dangerouslyIgnoreUnhandledErrors is on.

As the discussion in discord, I'm shifting a historical project with lots of badly designed cases which all throw unhandled rejections. For rapid development, I would like to ignore them first and solve them gradually. Because I quite sure they will not cause any false positive tests as they are in another testing frameworks.

So in my opinion, it'll be better to run all tests first and alert for the unhandled errors. Safeguard can be implemented in other strategy like watchdog timer. And this cases making Vitest hanging may be also reported as a potential bug of Vitest.

[sheremet-va]

But this handled rejection is caused by test case, not Vitest itself. It'll be better to start the following tests

It doesn't matter what called what in your reproduction. The error happened outside of the test body. If the error was handled inside the test, then Vitest won't fail. This code works correctly, for example:

test('test unhandled rejection', async () => {
  const promise = new Promise((resolve) => {
    window.addEventListener('unhandledrejection', () => resolve())
  })
  new Promise((_, reject) => reject('test'))
  await promise
})

Changing this behaviour is definitely not a priority.

As the discussion in discord, I'm shifting a historical project with lots of badly designed cases which all throw unhandled rejections. For rapid development, I would like to ignore them first and solve them gradually. Because I quite sure they will not cause any false positive tests as they are in another testing frameworks.

You can use Vitest's include option to include only tests that work correctly.

So in my opinion, it'll be better to run all tests first and alert for the unhandled errors. Safeguard can be implemented in other strategy like watchdog timer. And this cases making Vitest hanging may be also reported as a potential bug of Vitest.

As I already explained, we cannot do that because we will have to remove the safeguard. From the framework perspective, the current safeguard is much better than allowing some weird unhandled rejections to be ignored because the tests are written incorrectly.

[Tackoil]

I think I understand your opinion now. Keeping the safeguard unchanged seems to be ok to me.

As a developer using Vitest, the test result is confusing. It seems that Vitest only collect one test case and ignore the others. I cost lots of time to double check the include setting, and another lots of time to find out why Vitest failed to collect all tests. As a result, file an issue as it.

It would be better to adding more notes in this case. For example, "Vitest exited unexpectedly, checking unhandled errors or file an issue". Or just add the total count of collected cases in the result.

[sheremet-va]

Fixed by #7665