Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Support custom inline snapshot matchers #9278
Support custom inline snapshot matchers #9278
Changes from 5 commits
4ecea8e
cb39b4a
aa50570
40f34db
c581940
7d1b9f5
52f9234
83eb242
32f4c5e
d530b1c
e6431c4
4046b23
7e7e51a
495efd3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should
getTopFrame
do this work internally instead of the caller having to do it? It seems like the behaviour we'd always want, no?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the stack trace containing
__EXTERNAL_MATCHER_TRAP__
will already got removed bygetStackTraceLines
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we instead modify
getStackTraceLines
? Or both?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, good point. Is it enough to just change https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/9ac2dcd55c0204960285498c590c1aa7860e6aa8/packages/jest-message-util/src/index.ts#L49 to not filter out this new capture line? If not I think the approach you have here makes sense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried, it works fine in this context, but it would break in
formatStackTrace
.https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/9ac2dcd55c0204960285498c590c1aa7860e6aa8/packages/jest-message-util/src/index.ts#L254-L255
If we omit all stack traces before the trap, then the custom matcher won't correctly format the stack trace. It's covered here in an e2e test.
https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/9ac2dcd55c0204960285498c590c1aa7860e6aa8/e2e/custom-matcher-stack-trace/__tests__/sync.test.js#L41-L54
I believe that we have 2 options:
formatStackTrace
to un-skip the trap.I think (1) is more resilient while (2) feel more error-prone. Wonder what's your opinion on this?