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

Revert "Allows writing lint-friendly tests" #306

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 13, 2014
Merged

Conversation

@keithamus
Copy link
Member

@keithamus keithamus commented Nov 13, 2014

@logicalparadox
Copy link
Member

@logicalparadox logicalparadox commented Nov 13, 2014

👍

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

@keithamus keithamus commented Nov 13, 2014

😦

keithamus added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2014
Revert "Allows writing lint-friendly tests"
@keithamus keithamus merged commit b71b930 into master Nov 13, 2014
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details
@keithamus keithamus deleted the revert-297-noopchainfunc branch Nov 13, 2014
@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

@keithamus keithamus commented Nov 13, 2014

Perhaps a 1.10.1/1.11.0 release?

@joshperry
Copy link
Contributor

@joshperry joshperry commented Jan 9, 2015

Just wonder if you guys are going to revert this or just leave it until people start to use the new syntax in their code... The chaijs website was also updated to document this new syntax. If we wait too long, reverting may end up being a backcompat issue.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

@keithamus keithamus commented Jan 10, 2015

@joshperry indeed. master has been reverted we just need to cut a new release - which is dependant on #337

@johanneswuerbach
Copy link

@johanneswuerbach johanneswuerbach commented Feb 7, 2015

I think this change should be published asap (and marked as breaking) as it is advertised for ~ 2 months on your homepage and we (and I think others) already converted our projects to the new syntax.

@keithamus
Copy link
Member Author

@keithamus keithamus commented Feb 7, 2015

Yes, you're very right @johanneswuerbach. I'm going to work on getting a release out as soon as I can.

@keithamus keithamus mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2015
koulmomo added a commit to yahoo/fluxible-action-utils that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2015
modify unit tests due to breaking changes from chai 1.10 -> 2.0
chaijs/chai#308
chaijs/chai#306
@paul-barry-kenzan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@paul-barry-kenzan paul-barry-kenzan commented on b826feb May 27, 2015

Out of curiosity, why was this reverted? Doesn't this reopen #41?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@walterpinson walterpinson replied Sep 7, 2016

Yeah. Why reverted? I have the same curiosity.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@meeber meeber replied Sep 7, 2016

@paul-barry-kenzan @walterpinson The best place to read about the issues with the previous attempt at allowing both property and method assertions is: #302, particularly #302 (comment).
#726 contains ongoing discussion related to this issue. Please use that thread for any further discussion.

@sankethkatta
Copy link

@sankethkatta sankethkatta commented Oct 23, 2015

@paul-barry-kenzan I was wondering the same thing. There seems to be some more context here: #371 (comment)

@paul-barry-kenzan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@paul-barry-kenzan paul-barry-kenzan commented on b826feb May 27, 2015

Out of curiosity, why was this reverted? Doesn't this reopen #41?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@walterpinson walterpinson replied Sep 7, 2016

Yeah. Why reverted? I have the same curiosity.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@meeber meeber replied Sep 7, 2016

@paul-barry-kenzan @walterpinson The best place to read about the issues with the previous attempt at allowing both property and method assertions is: #302, particularly #302 (comment).
#726 contains ongoing discussion related to this issue. Please use that thread for any further discussion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.