Make toContain more strict with the received type

[ghostd]

Should fix #8023

Test plan

I added the following cases as expected errors:

expect('-0').toContain(-0)
expect('null').toContain(null)
expect('undefined').toContain(undefined)

[SimenB]

Thanks! I think this makes sense, although I'd consider it a breaking change. Will land in 27 👍

[dubzzz]

My understanding of the PR is that it should prevent users from passing wrongly typed values for toContain. With current PR it seems that expectation like expect("0").toContain(0); will no longer pass while it did in version 26. (Clearly a cool change IMO)

What about those ones (might already been covered)?

• expect("false").toContain(false);
• expect("0").toContain(0n);

The check for typeof expected only seems to handle the case of a number. But there are possibly other cases that may be problematic (booleans, bigints).

[SimenB]

they should all fail IMO. If they don't we should fix it. If they do we should add tests

[dubzzz]

I have not tested it yet to be honest. I was just surprised about the typeof check for numbers

[dubzzz]

I confirm the fact that expect("1").toContain(1n) and expect("false").toContain(false) are passing even with the fix. I am opening a PR for that.

[dubzzz]

PR opened: #10929

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.