fix(prefer-explicit-assert): only enforce assertion when presence/absence matcher #238
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Belco90
reviewed
Oct 15, 2020
| @@ -144,14 +152,44 @@ ruleTester.run(RULE_NAME, rule, { | |||
| code: `expect(getByText('foo')).toBeDefined()`, | |||
| options: [ | |||
| { | |||
| assertion: 'toBeInDocument', | |||
| assertion: 'toBeInTheDocument', | |||
Belco90
previously approved these changes
Oct 15, 2020
|
@skovy Should rule's doc be updated to reflect this change? |
|
I think the current docs are accurate, but I can update with more details about the specific logic and thinking around this rule. |
skovy
changed the title
|
@Belco90 updated the docs, let me know if that was roughly what you had in mind or something else? |
Belco90
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2020
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 3.9.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
This is a follow-up improvement to issue #218.
The original implementation was flawed. With the way this was implemented, any
getBy*query will trigger a linting error if it's not usingtoBeInTheDocument(assuming the config defined theassertionto use astoBeInTheDocument). However, there are still valid cases to use a different assertion. For example, if you want to check if a button is disabled (toBeDisabled) or maybe check if an anchor has the appropriatehrefattribute (toHaveAttribute).With the way the rule was implemented, both of these examples would trigger as violations (since they're not using
toBeInTheDocument) but they're both still valid uses ofgetBy*and thus are false positives.Solution
Now, this rule only triggers if the matchers used are
toBeInTheDocument,toBeTruthy,toBeDefined,not.toBeNull, ornot.toBeFalsyand doesn't match the configuredassertion. These matches already existed as a constant for another rule (prefer-presence-queries), so I moved them toutilsso they could be reused. This rule also had somewhat related logic for handling negated matchers. This logic was adapted for this rule.