Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: create prefer-to-be rule #864

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Sep 29, 2021
Merged

feat: create prefer-to-be rule #864

merged 10 commits into from
Sep 29, 2021

Conversation

G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

@G-Rath G-Rath commented Jul 22, 2021

An even better version of #821 (plus it doesn't flag toBe 🤦).

This deprecates prefer-to-be-undefined & prefer-to-be-null, as well as supporting toBeDefined (vs toBeUndefined). (@SimenB let me know if you're happy with this, or if you think they should stay as different rules)

Closes #821
Closes #801

@G-Rath G-Rath requested a review from SimenB July 22, 2021 21:47
@G-Rath G-Rath force-pushed the create-actual-prefer-to-be branch from 865849b to 858a1a8 Compare July 22, 2021 22:07
@LitoMore
Copy link

How about make this rule configurable? As mentioned in #821 (comment).

We could make its API defaults to:

'jest/prefer-to-be': ['error', {
  types: ['number', 'string', 'boolean', 'undefined', 'null', 'NaN']
}]

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator Author

G-Rath commented Jul 23, 2021

@LitoMore as I said in #821, I don't see a strong need for it to be configurable - why would you want to use it for some but not others?

@LitoMore
Copy link

LitoMore commented Jul 24, 2021

As I said in #821, I don't see a strong need for it to be configurable - why would you want to use it for some but not others? (@G-Rath)

For backward compatibility, I think.

But I agree with you that make this rule is not configurable. I don't want to give any chance to users to write "bad" code.

@G-Rath G-Rath mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2021
2 tasks
@SimenB SimenB merged commit 3a64aea into main Sep 29, 2021
@SimenB SimenB deleted the create-actual-prefer-to-be branch September 29, 2021 07:40
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2021
# [24.5.0](v24.4.3...v24.5.0) (2021-09-29)

### Bug Fixes

* **no-deprecated-functions:** remove `process.cwd` from resolve paths ([#889](#889)) ([6940488](6940488))
* **no-identical-title:** always consider `.each` titles unique ([#910](#910)) ([a41a40e](a41a40e))

### Features

* create `prefer-expect-resolves` rule ([#822](#822)) ([2556020](2556020))
* create `prefer-to-be` rule ([#864](#864)) ([3a64aea](3a64aea))
* **require-top-level-describe:** support enforcing max num of describes ([#912](#912)) ([14a2d13](14a2d13))
* **valid-title:** allow custom matcher messages ([#913](#913)) ([ffc9392](ffc9392))
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 24.5.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2021
# [25.0.0-next.5](v25.0.0-next.4...v25.0.0-next.5) (2021-09-29)

### Bug Fixes

* **no-deprecated-functions:** remove `process.cwd` from resolve paths ([#889](#889)) ([6940488](6940488))
* **no-identical-title:** always consider `.each` titles unique ([#910](#910)) ([a41a40e](a41a40e))
* **valid-expect-in-promise:** support `finally` ([#914](#914)) ([9c89855](9c89855))
* **valid-expect-in-promise:** support additional test functions ([#915](#915)) ([4798005](4798005))

### Features

* create `prefer-expect-resolves` rule ([#822](#822)) ([2556020](2556020))
* create `prefer-to-be` rule ([#864](#864)) ([3a64aea](3a64aea))
* **require-top-level-describe:** support enforcing max num of describes ([#912](#912)) ([14a2d13](14a2d13))
* **valid-title:** allow custom matcher messages ([#913](#913)) ([ffc9392](ffc9392))
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 25.0.0-next.5 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[new-rule] recommend toBe over toEqual when expecting primitive literals
3 participants