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

feat: use chaijs/loupe for inspection #1401

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 27, 2021
Merged

feat: use chaijs/loupe for inspection #1401

merged 1 commit into from Jun 27, 2021

Conversation

pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor

@pcorpet pcorpet commented Jun 7, 2021

Fix #1228

Note that for now this is just a quick attempt to explore which diffs are OK in the error messages and which ones we'd like to fix in loupe before merging.

@pcorpet pcorpet requested a review from a team as a code owner Jun 7, 2021
@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 7, 2021

+ expected - actual

-expected +0 to be truthy
+expected 0 to be truthy

I think we'd like https://github.com/chaijs/loupe to display 0 instead of +0. Or do you feel this is a good change?

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 7, 2021

      + expected - actual

      -blah: expected Foo{} to not be an instance of Foo
      +blah: expected {} to not be an instance of Foo

I think this one is a good change, please comment if you disagree

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 9, 2021

In both of these instances the changes are welcome I think.

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 9, 2021

Alright, thanks for the confirmation. For the next ones, I suggest you just add an emoji on the github comment to say that you're OK with the change or add a new comment if you're not.

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 9, 2021

Using ISO format for printing dates:

      + expected - actual
      -blah: expected 2021-06-09T11:40:15.786Z to be above 2021-06-09T11:40:16.786Z
      +blah: expected Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:40:15 GMT to be above Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:40:16 GMT

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 9, 2021

Unquoted complex key in objects:

      + expected - actual

      -expected { foo.bar: 'baz' } to have nested property 'foo.bar'
      +expected { 'foo.bar': 'baz' } to have nested property 'foo.bar'

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 9, 2021

We'll need to fix chaijs/loupe#44 as well

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 9, 2021

A bit more complex: when using prototype properties,

Object.create({tea: 'chai'})

We use to show it as regular properties:

{tea: 'chai'}

We now exclude them which makes it less readable:

[object Object]

What do you think?

@flaambe
Copy link
Contributor

flaambe commented Jun 9, 2021

Using ISO format for printing dates:

      + expected - actual
      -blah: expected 2021-06-09T11:40:15.786Z to be above 2021-06-09T11:40:16.786Z
      +blah: expected Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:40:15 GMT to be above Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:40:16 GMT

chaijs/loupe#34

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 10, 2021

Typed array:

      + expected - actual

      -Uint8Array[ 1, 2, 3 ]
      +[ 1, 2, 3 ]

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 10, 2021

Unquoted complex key in objects:


      + expected - actual



      -expected { foo.bar: 'baz' } to have nested property 'foo.bar'

      +expected { 'foo.bar': 'baz' } to have nested property 'foo.bar'

I think this is a regression. Ideally loupe would give us inspections which are syntactically valid and can be pasted into a REPL with minimal editing. I think loupe should detect if it needs quotes and add them.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 10, 2021

A bit more complex: when using prototype properties,

Object.create({tea: 'chai'})

We use to show it as regular properties:


{tea: 'chai'}

We now exclude them which makes it less readable:


[object Object]

What do you think?

This looks like a regression. I'd expect {} considering it's a prototype property, but we could also special case empty objects to show more info if needed.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 10, 2021

Typed array:


      + expected - actual



      -Uint8Array[ 1, 2, 3 ]

      +[ 1, 2, 3 ]

This is intentional. It is useful to know what typed array class is being inspected. We should update chai here.

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 11, 2021

Another one:

  it('inspect with custom stylize-calling inspect()s', function () {
    chai.use(function (_chai, _) {
      var obj = {
        outer: {
          inspect: function (depth, options) {
            return options.stylize('Object content', 'string');
          }
        }
      };
      expect(_.inspect(obj)).to.equal('{ outer: Object content }');
    });
  });
      + expected - actual

      -{ outer: 'Object content' }
      +{ outer: Object content }

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 14, 2021

Another one:

  it('inspect with custom stylize-calling inspect()s', function () {
    chai.use(function (_chai, _) {
      var obj = {
        outer: {
          inspect: function (depth, options) {
            return options.stylize('Object content', 'string');
          }
        }
      };
      expect(_.inspect(obj)).to.equal('{ outer: Object content }');
    });
  });
     + expected - actual

     -{ outer: 'Object content' }
     +{ outer: Object content }

What does nodejs do here? To me the loupe example seems correct but I’d be interested in Nodes output as it has the same API

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 15, 2021

What does nodejs do here? To me the loupe example seems correct but I’d be interested in Nodes output as it has the same API

For reference this is Node's API.

So the test is correct and I should fix the code.

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 23, 2021

To make progress on this, I would now need some reviews on loupe pull requests. @keithamus can you take a look please? https://github.com/chaijs/loupe/pulls

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 24, 2021

All fixes on loupe and been merged and published to npm. This should be able to progress now.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 24, 2021

@pcorpet I've also invited you to the chai org as a maintainer for loupe!

@pcorpet
Copy link
Contributor Author

pcorpet commented Jun 25, 2021

Thanks for the review, this PR should now be good for review as the tests pass.

Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus left a comment

This LGTM but perhaps a second set of eyes would be good. @flaambe as you worked on this before, do you think this looks good?

}, "expected { tea: \'chai\' } to deeply equal { tea: \'black\' }");
}, "expected {} to deeply equal {}");
Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus Jun 26, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel like we're losing data here. Perhaps this should be a feature of loupe that if the object has no own-properties then it can inspect the prototype to make it more useful for instances like this?

message: 'expected [ Array(4) ] to equal [ Array(4) ]'
message: "expected [ 'string1', 'string2', …(2) ] to equal [ 'string5', 'string6', …(2) ]"
Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus Jun 26, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is so much nicer IMO 👌

Copy link
Contributor

@flaambe flaambe left a comment

LGTM, but I was thinking we are going to replace lib/chai/utils/inspect.js completely?

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 27, 2021

I agree that's definitely the ultimate goal here. Merging this PR gets us a lot closer to that though so I'm happy to ship this.

@keithamus keithamus merged commit 120a338 into chaijs:main Jun 27, 2021
3 checks passed
@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jun 27, 2021

@pcorpet did you want to try porting this PR to the 4.x branch and we can cut a prerelease to make sure it doesn’t break folks workflow.

@pcorpet pcorpet deleted the loupe branch Jul 5, 2021
pcorpet added a commit to pcorpet/chai that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2021
keithamus pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Assertion error does not state problematic parts for Maps
3 participants