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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(assertions): findXxx() APIs now includes the logical id as part of its result #16454
feat(assertions): findXxx() APIs now includes the logical id as part of its result #16454
Changes from all commits
db42c11
0d00bf4
208c842
9d61d44
975c8cf
1b8df57
4a78761
0f409cb
cbf3d7b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
oops, I missed this in the last revision. We should be returning
undefined
here when there are no matches, not an empty object.That would make the user experience better. Users can do -
With what we have today, it'll be
WDYT?
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.
I like this in principle but it will mean that since
result
can beundefined
, something likeexpect(result.Foo).toEqual({})
becomesexpect(result!.Foo).toEqual({})
. I could be wrong but forcing users to use the!
escape or otherwise dealing with the possibility ofundefined
might not make the user experience better.WDYT, @nija-at? :)
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.
Ok, let's go with what you have now. It might actually be the better way.
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.
This is what I mean.
Would be nicer if we can do -