Support Immutable with chai's property assertions

[scottnonnenberg]

Property and deep property assertions, because I really like that syntax when I use chai with plain objects. :0)

var obj = Immutable.fromJS({ x: 1 });
expect(obj).to.have.property('x', 1);

var obj = Immutable.fromJS({ x: 1, y: { x: 2, y: 3 } });
expect(obj).to.have.deep.property(['y', 'x'], 2);

Based on original property() here: https://github.com/chaijs/chai/blob/8e8a728921085351ecd050cd606b2ef6a1fb1338/lib/chai/core/assertions.js#L881

Like other methods in chai-immutable, falls back to original chai methods if the target object is not isIterable().

100% code coverage for newly-added code. Also, I noticed that changing chai.config.truncateThreshold can make display of Immutable objects a lot nicer.

[scottnonnenberg]

Fixes #9, #41, #14.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.3%) to 98.315% when pulling 56eaf4a on scottnonnenberg:property into 655d187 on astorije:master.

[astorije]

Waouh @scottnonnenberg, thanks a lot for this, it looks like tremendous work! As a matter of fact, this is something I wanted to tackle fairly soon as I saw different requests about it coming up.
Give me a few days to review thoroughly and get back to you, and feel free to ping here if you think I forgot.

Hey what the hell @coveralls, you commenting here is supposed to be disabled!

[scottnonnenberg]

Ping! :0)

[astorije]

For alphabetical sorting consistency, would you mind moving this addition between keys and size, in the BDD reference section of the code please?

[astorije]

Hey @scottnonnenberg, sorry for being silent, busy and all.
I started briefly looking into your work, it's awesome, gonna be a great addition to the plugin!

The biggest thing I need to address with you is the format of the deep properties.
Chai "use[s] dot- and bracket-notation for deep references into objects and arrays", while you went for the same argument as passed to Iterable#getIn(). Since this plugin aims at providing transparent Chai assertions for Immutable, I mention using same notation as Chai's in #14. My questions are as follows:

• Why did you choose one over the other?
• Is there an easy equivalence between the getIn notation and the dot/bracket-notation, specifically for the indices? I don't see the use of indices in your tests.

Depending on these questions, I think we could either switch to the dot/bracket-notation or, if the getIn notation makes sense (it's more of a use case question than a technical one), if we can convert one to the other when receiving it as an input.

[scottnonnenberg]

Quick split() call and we support both! :0)

[astorije]

Great work, @scottnonnenberg! Could you squash your commits into one commit before I can merge, please?

[scottnonnenberg]

Squash complete!

[astorije]

Awesome, 👍 and merging!

[JalilArfaoui]

Hello both, Fantastic work !
Could you release a new version ?
I'm using latest npm (1.5.4) which does not support this ...

[astorije]

@JalilArfaoui Will do ASAP, I need to update the doc first. Stay tuned 😄

[astorije]

@JalilArfaoui, this was finally released in v1.6.0: https://github.com/astorije/chai-immutable/releases/tag/v1.6.0