fix: add stacktrace to failed expect function call #767
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
titanism
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2022
test(#767): 100% code coverage
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi! First, thank you for maintaining this great tool 🙂
Issue
When using a function call for the
expectassertion, and throwing an error inside this function, the displayed stack trace does not contain information from where the assertion is called. Instead, it only contains the line where the exception is thrown.This gets problematic when the assertion method is located in a module different from the test suite. In this case, the test suite is not even referenced. This can be verified in the first commit: b24da85 (those tests will fail).
Solution
The solution resides in the second commit: 3dba4e9.
As you can see, the
wrapAssertFnis starting to look very similar to the_assertFunction. In my opinion, the_assertFunctioncould be removed altogether. However, I did not venture into this as this would probably be a breaking change, because this method is part of the API despite being marked as internal. Please let me know what you think.