Try to patch node instead of skipping the test

Author: nirinchev

.evergreen/install-node-source.sh

@@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ pushd "${NODE_JS_SOURCE_PATH}"
 # patch directory
 patch -p1 < "${ROOT_DIR}/scripts/nodejs-patches/001-configure-bz2.patch"
 
+if [[ "$NODE_JS_VERSION" == "22"* ]]; then
+    patch -p1 < "${ROOT_DIR}/scripts/nodejs-patches/005-win-almost-fix-race-detecting-esrch-in-uv-kill.patch"
+fi
+
 ./configure --prefix "${NODE_JS_INSTALL_DIR}"
 
 ncpu=$(expr $(nproc 2> /dev/null || echo 5) - 1)

packages/e2e-tests/test/e2e.spec.ts

@@ -1059,13 +1059,6 @@ describe('e2e', function () {
     });
 
     it('reads and runs the vscode extension example playground', async function () {
-      if (
-        process.platform === 'win32' &&
-        process.versions.node.startsWith('22')
-      ) {
-        // This test fails on Windows with node 22 likely due to https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/51766
-        return this.skip();
-      }
       createReadStream(
         path.resolve(__dirname, 'fixtures', 'exampleplayground.js')
       ).pipe(shell.process.stdin);

scripts/nodejs-patches/005-win-almost-fix-race-detecting-esrch-in-uv-kill.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+diff --git a/deps/uv/src/win/process.c b/deps/uv/src/win/process.c
+index 4e94dee90e13eede63d8e97ddc9992726f874ea9..f46f34289e8e7d3a2af914d89e6164b751a3e47d 100644
+--- a/deps/uv/src/win/process.c
++++ b/deps/uv/src/win/process.c
+@@ -1308,16 +1308,34 @@ static int uv__kill(HANDLE process_handle, int signum) {
+       /* Unconditionally terminate the process. On Windows, killed processes
+        * normally return 1. */
+       int err;
++      DWORD status;
+
+       if (TerminateProcess(process_handle, 1))
+         return 0;
+
+-      /* If the process already exited before TerminateProcess was called,.
++      /* If the process already exited before TerminateProcess was called,
+        * TerminateProcess will fail with ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED. */
+       err = GetLastError();
+-      if (err == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED &&
+-          WaitForSingleObject(process_handle, 0) == WAIT_OBJECT_0) {
+-        return UV_ESRCH;
++      if (err == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED) {
++        /* First check using GetExitCodeProcess() with status different from
++         * STILL_ACTIVE (259). This check can be set incorrectly by the process,
++         * though that is uncommon. */
++        if (GetExitCodeProcess(process_handle, &status) &&
++            status != STILL_ACTIVE) {
++          return UV_ESRCH;
++        }
++
++        /* But the process could have exited with code == STILL_ACTIVE, use then
++         * WaitForSingleObject with timeout zero. This is prone to a race
++         * condition as it could return WAIT_TIMEOUT because the handle might
++         * not have been signaled yet.That would result in returning the wrong
++         * error code here (UV_EACCES instead of UV_ESRCH), but we cannot fix
++         * the kernel synchronization issue that TerminateProcess is
++         * inconsistent with WaitForSingleObject with just the APIs available to
++         * us in user space. */
++        if (WaitForSingleObject(process_handle, 0) == WAIT_OBJECT_0) {
++          return UV_ESRCH;
++        }
+       }
+
+       return uv_translate_sys_error(err);
+@@ -1325,6 +1343,14 @@ static int uv__kill(HANDLE process_handle, int signum) {
+
+     case 0: {
+       /* Health check: is the process still alive? */
++      DWORD status;
++
++      if (!GetExitCodeProcess(process_handle, &status))
++        return uv_translate_sys_error(GetLastError());
++
++      if (status != STILL_ACTIVE)
++        return UV_ESRCH;
++
+       switch (WaitForSingleObject(process_handle, 0)) {
+         case WAIT_OBJECT_0:
+           return UV_ESRCH;