This repository has been archived by the owner on May 22, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This solves two issues:
On that second point we were running into an issue where if you are stubbing an object you had to know if the property was a getter or not, which is difficult when the thing is imported from a dependency, ie:
Both should be consistently stubbed via
.stub(obj, 'prop', 'abc')
:Where currently, a regular object can be stubbed like
.stub(obj, 'prop', 'abc')
and a getter is stubbed like.stub(obj, 'prop', () => 'abc')
(as seen in the tests).Because this would change the way getters are stubbed this would be a breaking change for fancy-test where existing getter stubs would have to drop a function wrapper.