Skip to content
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

Breaking: Rename .deep.property to .nested.property #757

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 14, 2016

Conversation

meeber
Copy link
Contributor

@meeber meeber commented Jul 26, 2016

  • Previously, the deep flag had unexpected behavior when used with the
    property assertion: Instead of switching from strict to deep equality,
    it unlocked the ability to use dot and bracket notation when referencing
    property names. This behavior now belongs to the new nested flag.
  • assert.deepProperty renamed to assert.nestedProperty
  • assert.notDeepProperty renamed to assert.notNestedProperty
  • assert.deepPropertyVal renamed to assert.nestedPropertyVal
  • assert.notDeepPropertyVal renamed to assert.notNestedPropertyVal

Note:

- Previously, `expect(obj).not.property(name, val)` would throw an Error
if `obj` didn't have a property named `name`. This change causes the
assertion to pass instead.
- assert.propertyNotVal renamed to assert.notPropertyVal
- assert.deepPropertyNotVal renamed to assert.notDeepPropertyVal
- Previously, the `deep` flag had unexpected behavior when used with the
`property` assertion: Instead of switching from strict to deep equality,
it unlocked the ability to use dot and bracket notation when referencing
property names. This behavior now belongs to the new `nested` flag.
- assert.deepProperty renamed to assert.nestedProperty
- assert.notDeepProperty renamed to assert.notNestedProperty
- assert.deepPropertyVal renamed to assert.nestedPropertyVal
- assert.notDeepPropertyVal renamed to assert.notNestedPropertyVal
@keithamus
Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Aug 1, 2016

LGTM 👍. @lucasfcosta?

@lucasfcosta
Copy link
Member

Awesome job regarding the docs. Very clear instructions. 👍
Code LGTM too. But read this before merging.

Regarding this one I have the same doubt as I've had here.
Shouldn't breaking changes be merged to 4.x.x first instead of master?

@lucasfcosta lucasfcosta merged commit d4e8a4a into chaijs:master Aug 14, 2016
@meeber meeber deleted the nested-property branch August 6, 2017 13:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants