Correctly mock date.constructor

[robaw]

What problem is this PR solving?

Currently, if you call .constructor() on an instance of a mocked date, you do not call the mock constructor. This change updates the constructor function on the mocked date to point to the mock date constructor.

Why is this necessary?

date-fns v3 calls the constructor in this way, meaning that in order to be compatible with date-fns v3, this fix will need to be in place.

[robaw]

Hi @hustcc, here is a bug fix to have this library continue to work with date-fns. We use this library and hope that we can release this fix for it soon.

[hustcc]

Can help to change travis to github action, like: https://github.com/hustcc/jest-random-mock/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml

• remove travis config
• update badge in readme.md
• add github action workflows

[robaw]

Can help to change travis to github action, like: https://github.com/hustcc/jest-random-mock/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml

* [ ]  remove travis config

* [ ]  update badge in readme.md

* [ ]  add github action workflows

That sounds like outside of the scope of this bugfix contribution. Maybe raise it as issues in the repo if it's work that requires contributors.

[robaw]

@hustcc is this good to merge/release?

[hustcc]

@hustcc is this good to merge/release?

let me run the case locally first.

[hustcc]

@robaw add github action in #29 , you can rebase master, then ci will run in this pr.

[robaw]

@robaw add github action in #29 , you can rebase master, then ci will run in this pr.

Rebased and pushed 👍

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8451584168

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 46:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	19
Relevant Lines:	19

---

💛 - Coveralls

[hustcc]

jest-date-mock@1.0.9 released.