fix: append text only works with Matchers

[individual-it]

fixes #677

there were two problems in the code

1. a typo in the variable name context vs content so the first if wasn't doing anything (introduced by b3b5e62#diff-254dbea027a5c57e2b14fb8ff30edc28fea1d39ff2392d95731f7a16f60d5782R70)
2. the second else if compiled into the JS: else if (content), so all cases that had any content were send down that road

now the whole section compiles into

 if (typeof content === 'object' && content['pact:matcher:type']) {
     this.children.push(new xmlText_1.XmlText(content.value || '', content));
 }
 else {
     this.children.push(new xmlText_1.XmlText(content.toString()));
 }
 return this;

I deleted the fist if statement because it wasn't used in the first place and it should not harm to use toString() on a string

ToDo:

• add tests

[individual-it]

@TimothyJones this is ready for review

maybe the tests check too much private values, but I felt that it should be checked that the xml ends up being what it should.
Alternatively I could stringify the xml and then convert it to JSON, then all the eslint and ts exceptions would not be needed

[TimothyJones]

First off, thanks for this! I appreciate all the time you've put in.

Alternatively I could stringify the xml and then convert it to JSON, then all the eslint and ts exceptions would not be needed

I think that stringification and conversion sounds like a nice approach, as long as it's not creating a lot of code in the test - I'd be concerned about bugs in a complex test harness - who tests the tests? However, as I said in slack, I'm not personally super familiar with patterns for handling xml in JS, so I'm not sure what is easiest.

In terms of review, I found the test a bit hard to follow - maybe it's just a style I'm not used to, but perhaps it would be more self documenting if we could break up the blocks of expect into more individual tests with more specific descriptions (even if they're still grouped together).

I'd prefer not to turn off the linter if we can avoid it. If it's necessary to get around the type system for testing, I feel like maybe the type system needs improvement, rather than the tests need to be allowed to break the rules.

That all said, this is an improvement and fixes a bug, so I'm inclined to merge it. If you'd like to rework the tests a bit, that would certainly be welcome. If you end up not being able to get to it, let me know and I'll take a crack.