fix '-u' suggestion and snapshot summary #9
Conversation
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| function toMatchSpecificSnapshot(received, snapshotFile, testName) { | ||
| const absoluteSnapshotFile = getAbsolutePathToSnapshot(this.testPath, snapshotFile); | ||
|
|
||
| const commonSnapshotState = this.snapshotState; | ||
| // store the common state to re-use it in "afterAll" hook. | ||
| commonSnapshotState = this.snapshotState; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand this will be replaced on every toMatchSpecificSnapshot call ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed its is the only way we can get the original snapshotState. Not sure it worth it to add some checks to only store it the first time we get there. Wdty ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have to debug it a bit to understand the whole picture =)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you need more intel, please tell me :) Don't want to rush things, just would love to see this happen so it eases the process of updating snapshots in storyshots.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, will get to it this week. Just was a bit out of focus.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@thomasbertet I've checked it now, and it looks working. one thing though - if I have two different tests that are saving to the same snapshot file, I am getting a permission error on watch: EPERM: operation not permitted, lstat.
|
@igor-dv I'm thinking this is not related to this fix, is it ? |
|
I think that the problem is that when adding a watch flag, jest starts watching changes on files, and if two different tests are editing the same snapshot (the same file), it conflicts because this snapshot file is locked or something like this. I think this scenario is rare, so I will approve the changes to check them with storyshots. |
Hi,
Goal
How
Results
How to test
› 1 snapshot test failed in 1 test suite. Inspect your code changes or pressuto update them.Let me know if you need anything else to have this merge :D
Also, thanks for your work on this, I believe there was some resistance from Jest core team to add this functionnality into core, so this package helps a lot :)
Also you may want to follow what's going on there since there might have a future official and less hacky way of doing it!