Passing actions when expecting notifications in tests #6308
Conversation
| @@ -39,61 +39,127 @@ function expectObservableMethods(observable: Observable) { | |||
| expect(observable.removeAllListeners).to.be.a("function"); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| type Action = () => void; | |||
| type ChangeAndActions<ChangeSet extends object> = { expectedChange: ChangeSet; actions: Action[] }; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regarding <ChangeSet extends object>, I believe this will also allow ChangeSet to be an array and a function. Looking ahead in the code I think I only saw this type param being used as a Record. Maybe we can instead extends Record<string, unknown>?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't matter too much what it is, as long as it's not a function since that's what I use to distinguish actions from changesets as typeof fn === "function" for functions and typeof changeset === "obejct" for the changeset options 👍
| const { initialActions, changes } = inlineActions(changesAndActions); | ||
| performActions(initialActions); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If these are always performed in tandem, do you see a point in moving the responsibility of calling performActions() out of the expectX..() functions and perhaps to inlineActions()? (Also due to initialActions only being used as the argument here.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tend to separate functions that transform data (the inlining here) from functions with side-effects (the expectXNotifications functions).
| await expectObjectNotifications(this.object, [ | ||
| { deleted: false, changedProperties: [] }, | ||
| () => { | ||
| this.realm.write(() => { | ||
| this.object.name = "Bob"; | ||
| }); | ||
| }, | ||
| { deleted: false, changedProperties: ["name"] }, | ||
| ]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really neat idea with being able to see the actions and their effects sequentially like this 🙂
Co-authored-by: LJ <[email protected]>
* Allow passing actions when expecting notifications * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: LJ <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: LJ <[email protected]>
What, How & Why?
I know I'm going in circles on this one, but while implementing the key-path filtering tests, I noticed a pattern that I think simplifies writing these async tests even further, by allowing us to interleave actions (arrow function returning
voidand taking no arguments) with the expected changeset objects, when expecting notifications.