Conversation
Collaborator
|
Not sure about this one yet, I'd say let's get #83 in first then we can use this one to potentially fill in any left over gaps. |
commit: |
Owner
Author
|
@aryaemami59 I keep forgetting this is still a draft. Not a particularly exciting feature but v small implementation cost and somewhat useful so I'd like to get it in. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the code. |
aryaemami59
requested changes
Feb 14, 2025
Co-authored-by: Arya Emami <aryaemami59@yahoo.com>
aryaemami59
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2025
Collaborator
aryaemami59
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Still not too sure about the name tbh, and we'll add more docs and examples later to cover some of the niche use cases. Other than all looks good to me.
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
@aryaemami59 another potential helper that occurred to me might be useful. I'm not totally convinced it's worth it, but thought I'd open a draft PR in case you had thoughts. Given
.toBeCallableWithdoesn't work well for generic functions, it's a catch-all way to say "I am allowed to do this with my object" and make assertions on the result, without actually calling the function or performing side-effects, etc.:But the assertion could just as easily (maybe more easily) be written as:
Which also doesn't actually call
capitalizeat runtime.Advantages of
.map:capitalizerather than an inline callback.expectTypeOf<X>()as well asexpectTypeOf(x)It could also sub in for how we do
.toBeCallableWithin #83 too: