This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 1, 2024. It is now read-only.
Remove jest extended #2839
Merged
Remove jest extended #2839
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We used the matchers from jest-extended in 2 files, and it's possible to refactor those so it's not needed
It is only ever used to assert that an array returned by Object.keys is unique, and that's always going to be true as an object can't have two keys with the same name.
BPScott
force-pushed
the
remove-jest-extended
branch
from
4fc3e4e to
a863e85
Compare
emiryy
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2024
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Remove custom matcher usage from
jest-extendedand one custom matcher that we define in repo.This lets us have a simpler test harness.
jest-extended'stoBeObjectwith a call toexpect(BLAH).toMatchObject()jest-extended'stoBeOneOfwith setting up an array of possible items and usingexpect(possibleResults).toStrictEqual(expect.arrayContaining([VALUE_UNDER_TEST]));which is a little bit upside down but considering it only crops up 5 times I'm not bothered by it.toBeArrayOfUniqueItemsas they both doObject.keys(SOME_OBJECT).toBeArrayOfUniqueItems()and that array is always going to be unique because an object can't have multiple keys with the same value so we're asserting a truism.