-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
Add support for types in expectFilter
mocks
#254
Open
badasswp
wants to merge
6
commits into
10up:trunk
Choose a base branch
from
badasswp:feat/add-support-for-types-in-expect-filter-mocks
base: trunk
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Add support for types in expectFilter
mocks
#254
badasswp
wants to merge
6
commits into
10up:trunk
from
badasswp:feat/add-support-for-types-in-expect-filter-mocks
Conversation
This file contains 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
3fed0cb
to
76fdc61
Compare
nmolham-godaddy
requested changes
Feb 3, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wonderful work @badasswp, I just added few comments and suggestions below
Fix typo in doc block. Co-authored-by: Nabeel Molham <72820458+nmolham-godaddy@users.noreply.github.com>
chore: ensure only strings are returned Co-authored-by: Nabeel Molham <72820458+nmolham-godaddy@users.noreply.github.com>
Hi @nmolham-godaddy If you've got some spare time later today, could you pls help me review this PR at your earliest convenience. Thanks. |
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.
Summary
This PR introduces support for type inclusion in the
expectFilter
mock expressions. In this way it is possible to assert if an object has been passed in as an argument like so:Closes: #253
Details
At the moment, when we pass in an object or instance in our
apply_filters
and proceed to mock it using types, it incorrectly compares two different hashes, because our\WP_Mock\Functions::type( MyClass::class )
returns a Mockery Type object whose hash is different from anew MyClass()
object. See here.I have introduced the use of a static array in the Hook abstraction called
$objects
which basically acts as a hash map to store key/value pairs of the object's class name and the unique hash value of the Mockery Type associated with that object when the WP_Mock\Functions::type() is called in theexpectFilter
.AND
In this way, I am able to cross-check if the key exists in the
is_object
call of thesafe_offset
method when an object or instance is passed in and then effectively return the correct hash for that object like so:Contributor checklist
Testing
Create classes called MyClass & NewClass like so:
Create Test like so:
Run test, it should pass successfully:
composer run test
Reviewer checklist