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.

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

fix: matcher toHaveProperty actually tests value #1958



Copy link

@sheremet-va sheremet-va commented Sep 2, 2022

Actually fixes #1792
Reverts #1795

@sheremet-va sheremet-va merged commit 51b5d80 into vitest-dev:main Sep 4, 2022
@sheremet-va sheremet-va deleted the fix/to-have-property-check branch September 4, 2022 07:14
antfu pushed a commit to poyoho/vitest that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

toHaveProperty not working with semi-complex (but legal) property names
1 participant