Assert: Support compare primitive objects in deepEqual #905
Conversation
mixed
changed the title
| QUnit.test( "Compare primitive objects", function( assert ) { | ||
| var SafeNumber = Number, | ||
| SafeString = String, | ||
| SafeBoolean = Boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why saving these references? Does not look necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@leobalter
For lint validation. like it link
:)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, makes sense.
We should fix the code style here, that's relatively new on the code style, but we should declare all the variables with a new var statement.
var SafeNumber = Number;
var SafeString = String;
var SafeBoolean = Boolean;
|
I know I commented on several details, but this is a great work adding a great value to QUnit.equiv. I'm looking forward to merge this PR. Thanks, @mixed! |
|
@leobalter |
| @@ -1581,6 +1581,39 @@ QUnit.test( "Test that must be done at the end because they extend some primitiv | |||
| } | |||
| ); | |||
|
|
|||
| QUnit.test( "Compare Number values", function( assert ) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mixed: would you create a single module on the top of these tests called "Compare primitive values"?
Example:
QUnit.module( "Compare primitive values" );
|
We're close! |
|
|
||
| // Compare same constructor. | ||
| return a.toString() == b.toString(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this could be generalized and simplified a bit further, to something like
if ( typeof a === "object" ) {
a = a.valueOf();
}
if ( typeof b === "object" ) {
b = b.valueOf();
}
return a === b;There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gibson042
Thank you. I think of it again. I think this don't have to check type. Could you please explain to me more detail about check type? And How about think below logic?
function useStrictEquality( b, a ) {
if ( b instanceof a.constructor || a instanceof b.constructor ) {
return a.valueOf() === b.valueOf();
} else {
return a === b;
}
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, there are two issues. First, and most importantly, we should probably have an automatic return true in a separate guaranteed function for null, undefined, and nan "types". Having cleared those out of the way, there would be a few options for detecting wrapped primitives, and I like typeof object because it strikes me as the most semantic. And separate from all of that, it's just nice to see a single return with uniform comparison logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you. :)
I have misunderstood it. but I get it now. I think that check 'constructor' and check 'typeof' before I understand your comment.
Good comments. I updating it soon.
|
@gibson042 can we merge this? |
|
I increased test coverage a little and restored an explanatory comment, but yes! 😀 |
|
This is awesome! thanks, @mixed and @gibson042 |
Ref #895