[SO-135] Fix falsely required param bug #325
Conversation
|
Is this related to #324 ? |
|
@philsturgeon, no, not related to #324 |
| output: BAD_OUTPUT, | ||
| }), | ||
| ).toMatchSnapshot(); | ||
| expect(await validator.validateOutput({ resource: httpOperations[1], output: BAD_OUTPUT })).toMatchSnapshot(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| expect(await validator.validateOutput({ resource: httpOperations[1], output: BAD_OUTPUT })).toMatchSnapshot(); | |
| expect(validator.validateOutput({ resource: httpOperations[1], output: BAD_OUTPUT })).resolves.toMatchSnapshot(); |
|
You don’t need to return a promise from a test, you _can_ return a promise, but it’s not required.
The rule should be: only add async when the function has an await”, not “always have async for consistency.”
…--
Phil Sturgeon
@philsturgeon
On May 28, 2019, at 10:28, lag-of-death ***@***.***> wrote:
@lag-of-death commented on this pull request.
In packages/http/src/validator/__tests__/functional.spec.ts:
> @@ -18,6 +22,12 @@ describe('HttpValidator', () => {
it('returns validation errors for whole request structure', async () => {
expect(await validator.validateInput({ resource: httpOperations[2], input: BAD_INPUT })).toMatchSnapshot();
});
+
+ describe('when all required params are provided', () => {
+ it('returns no validation errors', async () => {
+ expect(await validator.validateInput({ resource: httpOperations[0], input: GOOD_INPUT })).toEqual([]);
I'm gonna go with async/await unless you think it's crucial to change it. And btw, all of the other tests are async/await. So let's stay consistent here as the alternatives are not in any way better.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
Not exactly. This still works because Jest has an internal queue (when using The truth, in general, for other test frameworks and for the JavaScript stuff in general — you should always return or store the promise. |
|
@philsturgeon, I don't quite understand. I used |
|
The threading was lost because I replied via email. Don’t worry, it’s already merged. 👍🏼 |
SO-135
Checklist
[ ] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)What kind of change does this PR introduce
Bug fix.
What is the current behavior
When all of the required query parameters are provided (for a request), we get a false bug:
{"path":["query"],"code":"type","message":"should be string","severity":0}Does this PR introduce a breaking change
No.