Missing .nested.include and .own.include

[meeber]

The nested and own flags currently work correctly with the .include assertion, but it's not documented or tested. Also, this functionality isn't currently exposed via the assert interface.

Note that I'm already making some documentation updates that include this, but the issue with the tests and assert interface are still outstanding.

[meeber]

BDD docs and tests were updated to resolve most of this issue. Still outstanding: Exposing on assert interface and adding tests.

[zetamorph]

I would like to do this and already read the contributor guide and familiarised myself with the coding style, but just to clarify, that task would also entail exposing the .deepNestedInclude, .deepOwnInclude(and the negated versions, respectively) methods on the assert interface?

[meeber]

@zetamorph Yup, exactly. For tests, I'd recommend just duplicating the ones for each combination from the expect test suite, and then converting them over to assert-style. For example here. It's okay to combine both the normal and negated versions into a single it block to make the conversion easier.

Thanks and feel free to reach out with any questions!

[zetamorph]

@meeber Thanks for the heads-up.
I have one question: does the coding style guide, specifically for nested arrays and objects, also strictly apply to examples in the documentation?

I find that the following:

assert.deepNestedInclude(
  {a: 
    {b: 
      [
        {x: 1}
      ]
    }
  }, 
  {'a.b[0]': 
    {x: 1}
  }
);

is much harder to read than this:

assert.deepNestedInclude({ a: { b: [ { x: 1 } ] } }, { 'a.b[0]': { x: 1 } });

[meeber]

@zetamorph Coding examples can be written with a focus on readability. See these examples from the updated BDD docs.

[zetamorph]

@meeber Ok, thanks.
I wasn`t sure because the style guide said that parts of the codebase still follow older styles.
I submitted a pull request, #964.