assert: add nestedInclude, deepNestedInclude, ownInclude and deepOwnInclude #964
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zetamorph Thanks so much for working on this! The changes look very clean. I have one small request to test the custom message feature for negated assertions (which it looks like some of our existing tests failed to do; feel free to add those too in a separate commit, otherwise we'll tackle in another PR :D).
test/assert.js
Outdated
| }, "expected { a: { b: [ 'x', 'y' ] } } to have nested property 'a.c'"); | ||
|
|
||
| err(function () { | ||
| assert.notNestedInclude({a: {b: ['x', 'y']}}, {'a.b[1]': 'y'}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add a third arg 'blah' here so that assert.notNestedInclude has at least one test verifying that custom messages work. (I think it's an oversight that some of the existing test blocks like .notDeepInclude don't have that).
test/assert.js
Outdated
| }, "expected { a: { b: [ [Object] ] } } to have deep nested property 'a.c'"); | ||
|
|
||
| err(function () { | ||
| assert.notDeepNestedInclude({a: {b: [{x: 1}]}}, {'a.b[0]': {x: 1}}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same thing here with adding a third arg 'blah'.
test/assert.js
Outdated
| }, "expected { a: { b: 2 } } to have deep own property 'toString'"); | ||
|
|
||
| err(function () { | ||
| assert.notDeepOwnInclude({a: {b: 2}}, {a: {b: 2}}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same thing here with adding a third arg 'blah'.
test/assert.js
Outdated
| }, "expected { a: 1 } to have own property 'toString'"); | ||
|
|
||
| err(function () { | ||
| assert.notOwnInclude({a: 1}, {a: 1}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same thing here with adding a third arg 'blah'.
|
Thanks! I added the custom messages. I will also do the same for the other tests. |
|
LGTM! Let's get another set of eyes on this before merging though: @vieiralucas @lucasfcosta @keithamus @shvaikalesh |
|
LGTM except for naming: maybe we should come up with something more descriptive than |
|
@shvaikalesh I was initially trying to come up with something specific to these methods that´s still not too long, but failed. You´re right in that haystack and needle are much more descriptive, I will change it, then the documentation for include-related methods is also more uniform. |
Assert: made documentation more descriptive
|
LGTM |
I added these methods and their negated versions to the assert interface and adapted the expect-style tests to assert-style as discussed in this issue: #905.