-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 698
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 .does as a no-op assertion, Fix #700 #701
Conversation
@vieiralucas is right at my side right now at college, I also watched him coding, so this LGTM. I think it would be a great idea to have this kind of tests. |
Hey guys I was thinking about the same thing earlier. I think a really simple test for each of the language chains would definitely be good. And I agree it should appear in both the I didn't realize you two were acquaintances! This Lucas camaraderie is more dangerous than I feared... I need to find a second Meeber, and fast. |
I added the only test that I could think of, which just checks that the chain exists. |
I'd say validate that each of them is chaining correctly, even though grammatically it won't always make sense: expect(3).to.equal(3);
expect(3).and.equal(3);
expect(3).of.equal(3);
...etc... Also a nitpick: The indent-style in the test arrays is different than the |
I see, the problem is that the error will be TypeError: Cannot read property 'equal' of undefined That's why I used But that's what you get when you use chai to test chai right? Anyways, I'll add tests that validade if they are chaining correctly. |
Looking closer I realized that it will be testing that |
d43287f
to
16fb110
Compare
LGTM! |
Awesome, good job guys! |
Hello guys, I saw that #700 was marked as pull-request-wanted.
So here I am 😄
I also did not find tests addressing no-op assertions.
Maybe I could add tests for it.
What do you guys think about it?