-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 697
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
expect.fail() and should.fail() are not documented #487
Comments
Thanks @astorije. The docs are available in the code, they just haven't been run through the website yet 😢 Just like #488 I'll close this. Please head on over to chaijs/chaijs.github.io#74 and chaijs/chaijs.github.io#34 to help out if you can. |
This still isn't documented as far as I can tell 😢 |
I think it may be because the docs for EDIT: |
Looks like this is a small bug with the docs I suppose. The way the docs work right now, is that the BDD (expect/should) pages set yaml front matter of The problem is that should.fail has a The easiest way to fix: just change the |
Seems good, I'm gonna do it this afternoon then, this seems to be very important for our users. |
Hi 👋 I went looking for Am I blind? |
Hey @alexbooker we have yet to release the update docs. It'll happen in the next few weeks, rest assured. |
@keithamus Thanks for the update. Please keep up the top-notch work 😄 |
FYI, I just checked but couldn’t find it either. Glad it exists 😄 |
First two arguments are still not documented as optional: |
expect.fail()
andshould.fail()
have been added in version 2.1.0. Although they both have a docstring (docstring forexpect
and docstring forshould
), they cannot be found in the documentation. Theirassert
counterpart, however, can be found here.That would be very useful for plugin developers :-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: