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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Compare dates when using td.matchers.contains #358

Closed
bjarketrux opened this issue Mar 27, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Compare dates when using td.matchers.contains #358

bjarketrux opened this issue Mar 27, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@bjarketrux
Copy link

Description

Testdouble.js does not seem to compare dates when using td.matchers.contains

Issue

Given the following code:

const td = require('testdouble')
const mock = td.func()

function run() {
    mock({ date: new Date("2001") });
}

run();

const arg = td.matchers.contains({ date: new Date("2005") });
td.verify(mock(arg));

I expect the test to fail (dates are not the same), but the test passes:
https://runkit.com/bjarketrux/testdouble-js-matchers-contains-date/1.0.0

If I do not use contains then the test fails as expected:
https://runkit.com/bjarketrux/testdouble-js-matchers-contains-date/1.1.0

Environment

node 8.10.0
testdouble 3.5.2
searls added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 31, 2018
@searls
Make contains() behave the same in nested cases
0c1c7b8 
Previously the comparison logic for traversable JS objects was separate
(presumably to avoid cycles, but possibly also because it was a
partial equality check, whereas the top-level contains() routine was a
case-by-case assessment of whether something contained something else.
This leads to confusing edge cases where something considered 
"contained" when inside a {} property would not be considered contained
when passed to the top-level matcher. Whatever benefit this might have
conferred was surely more confusing than it was worth.

This only really required a change to one existing test-case, that is 
when whatever is passed to contains() happens to deeply equal whatever
is actually passed, but that was never really a supported requirement,
so I'm wary of judging this a breaking change, since intuitively it
makes sense that the two things are in agreement. It could, however, 
throw some folks off when they're testing that something wraps something
else in an additional array (in which case this would generate a false
positive), though, and I don't have a good answer for that other than
it's hard to divine someone's intent given how incredibly permissive
this function's parameter signature is.

Aside from handling the issue stated in #358, in which someone calling 
contains() and passing a {d: Date} would expect it to fail if the
actual date differed from the passed one, this ch

Fixes #358
@searls searls mentioned this issue Mar 31, 2018
Merged
searls added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 31, 2018
@searls
Make contains() behave the same in nested cases
4e894e7 
Previously the comparison logic for traversable JS objects was separate
(presumably to avoid cycles, but possibly also because it was a
partial equality check, whereas the top-level contains() routine was a
case-by-case assessment of whether something contained something else.
This leads to confusing edge cases where something considered 
"contained" when inside a {} property would not be considered contained
when passed to the top-level matcher. Whatever benefit this might have
conferred was surely more confusing than it was worth.

This only really required a change to one existing test-case, that is 
when whatever is passed to contains() happens to deeply equal whatever
is actually passed, but that was never really a supported requirement,
so I'm wary of judging this a breaking change, since intuitively it
makes sense that the two things are in agreement. It could, however, 
throw some folks off when they're testing that something wraps something
else in an additional array (in which case this would generate a false
positive), though, and I don't have a good answer for that other than
it's hard to divine someone's intent given how incredibly permissive
this function's parameter signature is.

Aside from handling the issue stated in #358, in which someone calling 
contains() and passing a {d: Date} would expect it to fail if the
actual date differed from the passed one, this ch

Fixes #358
@searls
Copy link
Member

searls commented Mar 31, 2018

Good catch, totally legit bug, pain in the ass to fix. Landed in testdouble@3.7.0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@searls @bjarketrux