-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 693
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
Added includeDeepMembers #589
Conversation
Thanks @qbolec for the PR.
To answer your question about tests: yes - the tests are the spec for the assertion, so the more tests the better. If we decide that it is doing undesirable things then we can change the behaviour in a breaking version - we shouldn't be afraid to do that. How do you feel about the above? Happy for me to merge this or want to discuss some more? |
Not sure if we understand each other.
while I think they should all fail, or at least there should be some switch, option, or other method which would make them fail, as otherwise it is not trivial to implement a check for being a permutation. |
Hmm, as I understood the point, and in my opinion, |
Sounds good to me :) |
This is a proposition to add
assert.includeDeepMembers
.It's a second attempt, as previous #588 was flawed due to my ignorance of git.
Hopefully now we can discus a the merit of the change, as I have some doubts: