Switch unit tests to use vitest #1445
Merged
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
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
5 times, most recently
from
0df9add
to
83fdeb6
Compare
Comment on lines
+1
to
+2
| import { describe, beforeEach, afterEach, it, expect, vi } from "vitest"; | ||
| import arrayFindIndex from "../array_find_index"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if the copyright header needs to be on every file, but it seems it has been removed by mistake ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No I originally added them because it was there in other files, kind of out of respect for my elders basically :p
Yet we already have a global LICENSE file and those notices clutter the files too much, so now that we technically refactor those files, I profit from it by removing those - silently enough as not to wake up any potential over-zealous lawyer 🤫
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
16 times, most recently
from
3fdcc38
to
e5734e5
Compare
peaBerberian
added
tests
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
6 times, most recently
from
d1422a2
to
63d295e
Compare
peaBerberian
changed the title
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
from
7e2ea17
to
fb29c1f
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/replace-karma-by-vitest
branch
from
abc6a78
to
4d40b98
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
from
6bd98b5
to
9828d1d
Compare
Florent-Bouisset
force-pushed
the
refactor/replace-karma-by-vitest
branch
2 times, most recently
from
64250eb
to
c554adb
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e368c3d
to
b4fe9e7
Compare
Merged
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/replace-karma-by-vitest
branch
from
2938954
to
d40a343
Compare
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
from
b4fe9e7
to
f38e196
Compare
To extrapolate on #1444, this PR shows how it would look like to switch from relying on Jest to rely on vitest for our unit tests. The end goal being to simplify our codebase by relying on a single testing framework. --- I only done so for testing files in the `src/compat` directory in this demo. It can be tested right now by calling `npm run test:unit:vitest`. --- Sadly for now, we are still forced to rely on a JSDom-ed Node.js environment for unit tests and a browser environment for integration tests - meaning we have very different configs for both. This is because we want to mock imported files in unit tests - something that is not possible for now in browser environment through vitest (though vitest/5765 seems to have been merged very recently so maybe we could rely on the browser for both soon), yet we want to replicate as much as a real browser as possible in our integration tests (because we're also testing that media playback on the tested browsers goes as expected).
peaBerberian
force-pushed
the
refactor/vitest-unit-test
branch
from
f38e196
to
38b8163
Compare
peaBerberian
changed the base branch from
refactor/replace-karma-by-vitest
to
dev
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.
To extrapolate on #1444, this PR shows how it would look like to switch from relying on Jest to rely on vitest for our unit tests.
The end goal being to simplify our codebase by relying on a single testing framework.
It can be tested right now by calling
npm run test:unit.Sadly for now, we are still forced to rely on a JSDom-ed Node.js environment for unit tests and a browser environment for integration tests - meaning we have very different configs for both.
This is because we want to mock imported files in unit tests - something that is not possible for now in browser environment through vitest (though vitest/5765 [any real link seems to spam their GitHub page, even with a random anchor added to it] seems to have been merged very recently so maybe we could rely on the browser for both soon), yet we want to replicate as much as a real browser as possible in our integration tests (because we're also testing that media playback on the tested browsers goes as expected).