feat(to-have-value): added new rule prefer-to-have-value #111
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #111 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 12 13 +1
Lines 247 259 +12
Branches 37 37
=========================================
+ Hits 247 259 +12
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
src/rules/prefer-to-have-value.js
Outdated
| category: "jest-dom", | ||
| description: "prefer toHaveValue over checking element.value", | ||
| url: "prefer-to-have-value", | ||
| recommended: false, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not recommend this rule? Seems safe and it's still fixable.
| recommended: false, | |
| recommended: true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wanted to vet it a bit with the new smoke test feature we added. But yeah this is the plan
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| //expect(element).toHaveAttribute('value', 'foo') / Property | ||
| [`CallExpression[callee.property.name=/toHave(Attribute|Property)/][arguments.0.value=value][arguments.1][callee.object.callee.name=expect], CallExpression[callee.property.name=/toHave(Attribute|Property)/][arguments.0.value=value][arguments.1][callee.object.object.callee.name=expect][callee.object.property.name=not]`]( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is [arguments.1] needed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah here's it's needed. its essentially a non null check to ensure there's a 2nd param ("foo" in the commented example.)
Co-authored-by: Anton Niklasson <[email protected]>
…t-dom into feature/to-have-value
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 3.5.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
What: Add new rule prefer-to-have-value
Why: all the matchers!
How: with code.
Checklist: