-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.5k
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
fix(jest-mock): tweak typings to allow jest.replaceProperty()
replace methods
#14008
Merged
SimenB
merged 6 commits into
jestjs:main
from
mrazauskas:fix-jest-mock-replaceProperty-typings
Apr 9, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1afcb56
fix(jest-mock): tweak typings to allow `jest.replace` replace methods
mrazauskas 9151743
change log
mrazauskas eca27d5
clean up
mrazauskas f5edbed
rebase
mrazauskas 641c21b
clean up
mrazauskas a8e8316
Merge branch 'main' into fix-jest-mock-replaceProperty-typings
mrazauskas File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that this should align with:
in the types packages.
Currently (without this change) getting a typescript error:
So basically one of the issues is fixed here by not using
PropertyLikeKeys
anymore butT extends object
is still incompatible withT
so should likely also become justT
here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm.. I think it would be better to have
T extends object
in@types/jest
. It looks right to have a constrain here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As long as it's aligned I guess. But I don't think
object
is a good choice becauseobject
means "all non-primitive" types. So any class instances would also match that, for example. I don't know jest well enough to suggest what it should be but perhapsRecord<.., ..>
would be a better fit?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If all non-primitive types are objects and if objects can have properties, I think it is alright to assume that these objects can have properties and that these properties might get replaced. Sometimes people add extra properties on arrays or functions. For instance,
expect()
hasexpect.not.stringContaining()
which is the property of that function.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just opened DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped#64936