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

test(Scope): Add unit test coverage for Scope.remove() #1357

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2019
Merged

Conversation

paulmelnikow
Copy link
Member

It's not clear whether remove() is intended to be part of the public API. There did not seem to be a way to easily exercise this through the main nock API so this was approached as a unit test.

It's not clear whether `remove()` is intended to be part of the public API. There did not seem to be a way to easily exercise this through the main `nock` API so this was approached as a unit test.
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
'use strict'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don’t think we need the use strict if we require Node 8+?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Huh, I always used it in CJS modules though not in ES6 modules. That could be an obsolete practice, though. Not sure!

I found this which doesn't seem conclusive, but suggests it's still doing something: http://imaginativethinking.ca/what-the-heck-is-node-modules-strict-by-default/

@nockbot
Copy link
Collaborator

nockbot commented Jan 19, 2019

🎉 This PR is included in version 11.0.0-beta.4 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@nockbot
Copy link
Collaborator

nockbot commented Aug 13, 2019

🎉 This PR is included in version 11.0.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants