Use .toHaveProperty to check for property
#16296
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
Member
Author
|
Also @liuxingbaoyu pleae take a look at the REPL job failure :) |
JLHwung
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2024
Contributor
|
That was most definitely not on purpose! 😅 Might be kinda correct, though? not sure 🤔 do you have a minimal reproduction? |
liuxingbaoyu
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2024
Member
Author
|
@SimenB I think the new beahvior better than the old one :) |
Contributor
|
cool 👍 will leave it be, then 🙂 unless the error message is bad? |
Member
Author
|
The error message is terrible (it always just says |
liuxingbaoyu
pushed a commit
to liuxingbaoyu/babel
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1, Fixes #2Fixes the CI failure in #16294 (that is actually also failing on main, we just didn't trigger CI yet)
expect@30.0.0-alpha.3was recently released, with a change that causesexpect(notAnIterable).not.toContain(foo)to throw rather than passing becausenotAnIterabledoes not contain anything so it doesn't containfoo(jestjs/jest@bd3a7e9).Our CI somehow pulls in not only the latest stable version of packages, but the latest version in general and so it uncovered this bug in our tests.
@SimenB I don't think this change was intentional, but maybe it would be great to have it documented in the 30.0.0 release notes :)