fix: toBeInTheDocument fails on null #79
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
dreyks
force-pushed
the
fix-null-to-be-in-the-document
branch
from
613aeaa to
0f3ae82
Compare
dreyks
changed the title
|
Thanks! |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 3.1.1 🎉 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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What:
expect(null).toBeInTheDocument()fails with a non-descriptive errorTypeError: Cannot read property 'ownerDocument' of nullWhy:
to produce a more friendly error message
How:
nulltoThrowError()with no arguments passes on any error including logic errorsChecklist:
Alternatively instead of calling checkHtmlElement we can change https://github.com/gnapse/jest-dom/blob/02c340d03f5b9bb5b02c51286f306ddd1759ae42/src/to-be-in-the-document.js#L26 to something like
${stringify(element ? element.ownerDocument.cloneNode(false) : 'document')}. Tell me if that's preferable (it also makes the error message even more obvious)