fix(@jest/types): allow the *ReturnedWith matchers to be called with no argument
#13385
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
7 tasks
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From https://github.com/facebook/jest/pull/13383/files#r986873627
Summary
Apparently the
*ReturnedWithmatchers work when called with no arguments:https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/ae8a5a293e1339e1e409b8f73f5b6ef4e69988c6/packages/expect/src/__tests__/spyMatchers.test.ts#L873-L877
Current typings of the matchers require an argument. At first
expect(someFn).toHaveReturnedWith()looks odd, but I think that makes sense. A function can be called with no args and is not required to have areturnstatement. This is well reflected with:toHaveBeenCalledWith()andtoHaveReturnedWith(). In other words, a function is allowed to return a void.Or logic of the matcher should be reworked in the next major? Not sure about that.
Test plan
Type tests are adjusted.