matchers.contains(number) support

[focusaurus]

Given this repro snippet

const td = require('testdouble')

const repro = td.function()
repro([1])
td.verify(repro(td.matchers.contains(1)))

I'd like this to succeed, but currently it throws an exception "Error: Error: testdouble.js - td.matchers.contains - this matcher only supports strings, arrays, and plain objects"

I think to fix this is just a matter of or _.isNumber(containing) on

testdouble.js/src/matchers/index.coffee

Line 45 in 30e27f5

if _.isString(containing)

[searls]

Ah, the issue is that you're saying that [1] should contain 1, and that doesn't make a lot of sense. Have you tried td.verify(repro(td.matchers.contains([1])))?

[focusaurus]

you're saying that [1] should contain 1, and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Here's two examples. The ONLY difference is replacing the string 'one' with the number 1. I don't see any reason why both of these should not behave identically. The first one works fine, the second one throws an exception.

const td = require('testdouble')

const withString = td.function()
withString(['one'])
td.verify(withString(td.matchers.contains('one')))

const withNumber = td.function()
withNumber([1])
td.verify(withNumber(td.matchers.contains(1)))

[searls]

Ugh, I really apologize. I shot from the hip and speculated when I replied above because I was on a machine without a dev environment, but now that I can test it out locally you're completely write. The truth is this feature doesn't work how I thought it did.

I'm sort of annoyed with myself for not finding this API quirk before going 1.0, because it's not how I want it, but it's also not worth breaking backwards-compatibility.

Naturally, this mistake means I need to accept any kind of input, including null/undefined/true, etc. I'll take a stab at this now.

[focusaurus]

Yeah I can give it some more thought in terms of what the ideal API/behavior would be, but I think at the moment it's not self-consistent. Could go more explicit and tighter matching or more loose and flexible matching I guess.

[searls]

Check out the update in 1.4.2 and let me know if that works for you

[focusaurus]

Yes, no more exception! Thanks for the quick fix. Been getting a lot of mileage out of testdouble recently.