[RFC] Analysis of lifecycle methods#1474
Conversation
| # Analysis of lifecycle methods | ||
|
|
||
|  | ||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also leave this as a "draft" for a bit to let it bake for a while before we accept it. Or go ahead and accept it now. I don't feel strongly either way. If there are no objections let's merge it as a draft.
|
I'd like to get started on pulling in the proposals! Any objection to merging this? |
gr2m
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ooopsies sorry I had this review open but must have forgotten to send it :(
rfcs/NOCK-001.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ | |||
| # Analysis of lifecycle methods | |||
|
|
|||
|  | |||
| # Analysis of lifecycle methods | ||
|
|
||
|  | ||
|  |
rfcs/rfc-001.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| | Use case | Code | Assessment | | ||
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ||
| | Assert that all mocks have been satisfied | `scopes.forEach(scope => scope.done())`. When using `nockBack`, `assert.deepEqual(scope.pendingMocks(), [])` | `done()` could have a more explicit name, though otherwise this is fairly clear. However it requires the caller to keep track of all the scopes, which is not ideal. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a sentence here about nockBack that comes from the discussion at #1476.
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 11.0.0-beta.7 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 11.0.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
This pulls the analysis material from #1441 (see #1441 (comment)).
I don't think there are any pending comments from #1441.
I've wordsmithed it a little bit.