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

Validate hook functions first argument #6931

Merged

Conversation

natealcedo
Copy link

Summary

This pull request handles the case where the callback function for the jest hooks beforeEach, beforeAll, afterEach, afterAll are not functions in issue #6789. This PR also handles every other primitive type. PR #6917 only handles a smaller set of cases whereas this one does.

Test plan

I've updated the test suites in both these files.

https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/master/packages/jest-circus/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/master/packages/jest-jasmine2/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Aug 31, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #6931 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 11.11%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6931   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.97%   66.97%           
=======================================
  Files         250      250           
  Lines       10379    10379           
  Branches        3        3           
=======================================
  Hits         6951     6951           
  Misses       3427     3427           
  Partials        1        1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/jest-jasmine2/src/jasmine/Env.js 0% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
...ackages/jest-jasmine2/src/jasmine/jasmine_light.js 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
packages/jest-circus/src/index.js 66.66% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 24c173e...5c45f71. Read the comment docs.

@@ -15,10 +15,12 @@ describe('hooks error throwing', () => {
test.each([['beforeEach'], ['beforeAll'], ['afterEach'], ['afterAll']])(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can change this to describe.each, then have the inner for-loop be test.each

@natealcedo
Copy link
Author

@SimenB, I've pushed in a set of changes which includes adding types for describe.each and test.each. Let me know what you think!

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 1, 2018

Perfect, thank you!

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 1, 2018

@natealcedo thoughts on upstreaming the changes in the flow definitions to flow-typed? https://github.com/flow-typed/flow-typed/blob/master/definitions/npm/jest_v23.x.x/flow_v0.39.x-/jest_v23.x.x.js

I also have this diff locally:

diff --git c/flow-typed/npm/jest_v23.x.x.js w/flow-typed/npm/jest_v23.x.x.js
index e8e487175..abaa092b6 100644
--- c/flow-typed/npm/jest_v23.x.x.js
+++ w/flow-typed/npm/jest_v23.x.x.js
@@ -922,7 +922,7 @@ declare var describe: {
    * @param {table} table of Test
    */
   each(
-    table: Array<Array<mixed>>
+    table: Array<Array<mixed> | mixed>
   ): (
     name: JestTestName,
     fn?: (...args: Array<any>) => ?Promise<mixed>
@@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ declare var it: {
    * @param {table} table of Test
    */
   each(
-    table: Array<Array<mixed>>
+    table: Array<Array<mixed> | mixed>
   ): (
     name: JestTestName,
     fn?: (...args: Array<any>) => ?Promise<mixed>
@@ -967,7 +967,7 @@ declare var it: {
     timeout?: number
   ): {
     each(
-      table: Array<Array<mixed>>
+      table: Array<Array<mixed> | mixed>
     ): (
       name: JestTestName,
       fn?: (...args: Array<any>) => ?Promise<mixed>
@@ -1003,7 +1003,7 @@ declare var it: {
    * @param {table} table of Test
    */
   each(
-    table: Array<Array<mixed>>
+    table: Array<Array<mixed> | mixed>
   ): (
     name: JestTestName,
     fn?: (...args: Array<any>) => ?Promise<mixed>
diff --git c/packages/jest-circus/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js w/packages/jest-circus/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
index 6faab9809..73d1d1ffe 100644
--- c/packages/jest-circus/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
+++ w/packages/jest-circus/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
@@ -11,19 +11,10 @@
 
 const circus = require('../index.js');
 
-describe.each([['beforeEach'], ['beforeAll'], ['afterEach'], ['afterAll']])(
+describe.each(['beforeEach', 'beforeAll', 'afterEach', 'afterAll'])(
   '%s hooks error throwing',
   fn => {
-    test.each([
-      ['String'],
-      [1],
-      [[]],
-      [{}],
-      [Symbol('hello')],
-      [true],
-      [null],
-      [undefined],
-    ])(
+    test.each(['String', 1, [], {}, Symbol('hello'), true, null, undefined])(
       `${fn} throws an error when %p is provided as a first argument to it`,
       el => {
         expect(() => {
diff --git c/packages/jest-jasmine2/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js w/packages/jest-jasmine2/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
index c8bdf0f49..1f6e2cc76 100644
--- c/packages/jest-jasmine2/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
+++ w/packages/jest-jasmine2/src/__tests__/hooks_error.test.js
@@ -9,19 +9,10 @@
 
 'use strict';
 
-describe.each([['beforeEach'], ['beforeAll'], ['afterEach'], ['afterAll']])(
+describe.each(['beforeEach', 'beforeAll', 'afterEach', 'afterAll'])(
   '%s hooks error throwing',
   fn => {
-    test.each([
-      ['String'],
-      [1],
-      [[]],
-      [{}],
-      [Symbol('hello')],
-      [true],
-      [null],
-      [undefined],
-    ])(
+    test.each(['String', 1, [], {}, Symbol('hello'), true, null, undefined])(
       `${fn} throws an error when %p is provided as a first argument to it`,
       el => {
         expect(() => {

@natealcedo natealcedo deleted the validate-hook-functions-first-argument branch September 1, 2018 09:24
@natealcedo
Copy link
Author

Hey, sorry could you elaborate on what you meant by upstreaming it? Do you mean pulling in the changes from here to flow-typed? This is the first project where I've used flow so I'm abit hazy on it. But if that's the case, I'm game on doing the work.

On the topic of your changes locally, I don't really know what I'm looking at. Asides from the inner nesting of the arguments to describe.each.

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 1, 2018

Yes, the flow definitions in this project is just pulled from that repo. So changes we make here should be upstreamed so that others get to use them as well 🙂

My local changes are related to #6351 where we added support for dropping the extra nested arrays. That should also go into the typings 🙂

@natealcedo
Copy link
Author

In that case, let me update the typings locally here because table: Array<Array<mixed> | mixed> looks more accurate than table: Array<Array<mixed>>.

Here is what I plan on doing.

  1. Update typings in this project and do a PR in this repo.
  2. Upstream the changes to flow-typed

Is that fine?

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 1, 2018

sounds good!

@github-actions
Copy link

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.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 12, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants