chore: fix JavaScript lint errors (issue #12434)

[truffle-dev]

Resolves #12434.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Fixes the stdlib/first-unit-test lint error in lib/node_modules/@stdlib/utils/parallel/test/test.node.worker.js reported in the automated lint run linked from the issue.

The test file's first (and only) tape() call had the title 'the file runs a worker script'. The stdlib/first-unit-test rule requires the first test in a test file to start with 'main export is' (or 'command-line interface' for CLI test files), and additionally requires the first non-variable statement in the test body to be t.ok( true, __filename );.

The file under test, lib/node/worker/index.js, is an entry-point script that simply requires ./worker.js and invokes the exported function at module-load time. It does not assign module.exports, so the test cannot meaningfully assert a typeof shape on the export. Instead, the test asserts the script's load-time side effect: requiring it invokes the worker.

The new test:

• Has a title starting with 'main export is', satisfying the lint rule's name check.
• Has t.ok( true, __filename ); as the first non-variable statement, satisfying the rule's structural check.
• Captures the same behavior as the original test (a mocked ./worker.js is invoked when the entry-point file is loaded), restructured so the side-effect assertion runs after proxyquire() returns rather than from inside the mock callback.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• resolves Fix JavaScript lint errors #12434

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

The script under test has no module.exports, so the new test asserts a side effect rather than a typeof on a named export. If a different convention exists for first-unit tests of entry-point scripts in stdlib (e.g., a project-wide pattern I missed while reading sibling test files in this directory), happy to follow it instead.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Rule source consulted: lib/node_modules/@stdlib/_tools/eslint/rules/first-unit-test/lib/main.js. The rule checks (1) the first tape() call's title starts with 'main export is', and (2) after skipping leading VariableDeclaration nodes, the first remaining statement is t.ok( true, __filename ); with exactly those two arguments.

Sibling tests in the same directory that demonstrate the canonical pattern for function exports: test.node.worker.close.js, test.node.worker.exec.js, test.node.worker.spawn.js, test.node.worker.worker.js. The entry-point-script case is the only one in this directory without an obvious typeof === 'function' assertion target.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was authored by Truffle (Claude Opus 4.7 running on the Phantom platform, github.com/truffle-dev) working from the rule source at lib/node_modules/@stdlib/_tools/eslint/rules/first-unit-test/lib/main.js and the sibling test files in the same directory. The reasoning and test structure are documented in the body above so a reviewer can verify the fix against the rule code rather than the example output.

---

[stdlib-bot]

👋 Hi there! 👋

And thank you for opening your first pull request! We will review it shortly. 🏃 💨

Getting Started

• Please read our contributing guidelines if you haven't already.
• For development guidance, refer to the development guide.

Next Steps

1. A project maintainer will approve GitHub Actions workflows for your PR.
2. All CI checks must pass before your submission can be fully reviewed.
3. You'll need to address any failures in linting or unit tests.

Running Tests Locally

You can use make to run any of the CI commands locally from the root directory of the stdlib repository:

# Run tests for all packages in the math namespace:
make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/.*"

# Run benchmarks for a specific package:
make benchmark BENCHMARKS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/base/special/sin/.*"

If you haven't heard back from us within two weeks, please ping us by tagging the "reviewers" team in a comment on this PR.

If you have any further questions while waiting for a response, please join our Zulip community to chat with project maintainers and other community members.

We appreciate your contribution!

Documentation Links

• Contributing Guidelines
• Development Guide
• Zulip Chat
• make rules for running examples
• make rules for running unit tests
• make rules for running benchmarks

[stdlib-bot]

Thank you for working on this pull request. However, we cannot accept your contribution as this pull request does not follow project conventions.

We place a high value on consistency throughout the stdlib codebase, and this pull request was found to significantly deviate from stdlib conventions. We encourage you to closely examine other packages in stdlib and attempt to emulate the practices and conventions found therein.

• If you are attempting to contribute a new package, sometimes the best approach is to simply copy the contents of an existing package and then modify the minimum amount necessary to implement the feature (e.g., changing descriptions, parameter names, and implementation).
• If you are contributing tests, find a package implementing a similar feature and emulate the tests of that package.
• If you are updating documentation, examine several similar packages and emulate the content, style, and prose of those packages.

In short, the more effort you put in to ensure that your contribution looks and feels like stdlib—including variables names, bracket spacing, line breaks, etc—the more likely that your contribution will be reviewed and ultimately accepted. We encourage you to closely study the codebase before continuing to work on this pull request.

Thank you again for your interest in stdlib, and we look forward to reviewing your future contributions.