GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Have a question about this project?
Jest Array/Object partial match with objectContaining and arrayContaining
Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. When i got a failed test with the message " Expected [ 1, undefined ] to equal [ 1, undefined ].
It looks like this is probably the pretty printer issue from Yes, arr1 was internally only 1 long, but what does an internally and 'hidden'? Both objects are Array s and both arrays have a length of 2 and both have a value on the first index and both have undefined on the second index.
After playing around a little it maybe is a question what do we call equal. Same behavior or identical structure. For the previous sample the difference is 'easy' detectable with code below or via a for-in loop. It appears that Underscore's toEqual on which Jasmine's equality is based does still say the two arrays are equal. As you have identified, defining equality is a tricky problem. For now, if this behavior is important to you, I would recommend creating a custom equality tester.
The pretty printer should be printing out all properties for an array as of version 2. The error message is Expected [ undefined, undefined, 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' ] to equal [ undefined, undefined, 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' ]. I can confirm the same anomaly. In my case, I wasn't comparing to arrays, but rather two objects.
I have an object, which I send to MongoDB. I then query the database for that same document, get it back, and confirm the response is the same as the object I originally sent. JamieCorkhill what version of Jasmine are you using? That looks like a older error message from toEqual. Newer Jasmine versions should include more details about differences constructor possibly and breakdowns of which fields are missing or different. I'm not using Jasmine, I'm using Expect, and it's I apologize for the mixup.
Skip to content. Dismiss Join GitHub today GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Subscribe to RSS
The dark mode beta is finally here. Change your preferences any time. Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find and share information. It's working when I use expect response. But is there any fix for expect. You should use toEqual not toBe to compare objects and arrays. Use toBe for scalar data types only. If you like to check the response data type use typeof operator.
Learn more. Expected Array but received array in Jest Ask Question. Asked 2 years, 7 months ago. Active 1 year, 2 months ago.
Viewed 2k times. I created unit async test in Jest. Expected Array but received array. Vesmy Vesmy 7 7 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges. Active Oldest Votes. Alexander Elgin Alexander Elgin 5, 4 4 gold badges 29 29 silver badges 44 44 bronze badges. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook.The jest object is automatically in scope within every test file. The methods in the jest object help create mocks and let you control Jest's overall behavior.
See automock section of configuration for more information. After this method is called, all require s will return the real versions of each module rather than a mocked version. This is usually useful when you have a scenario where the number of dependencies you want to mock is far less than the number of dependencies that you don't. For example, if you're writing a test for a module that uses a large number of dependencies that can be reasonably classified as "implementation details" of the module, then you likely do not want to mock them.
Examples of dependencies that might be considered "implementation details" are things ranging from language built-ins e. Note: this method was previously called autoMockOff. When using babel-jestcalls to disableAutomock will automatically be hoisted to the top of the code block.
Use autoMockOff if you want to explicitly avoid this behavior. Note: this method was previously called autoMockOn. When using babel-jestcalls to enableAutomock will automatically be hoisted to the top of the code block. Use autoMockOn if you want to explicitly avoid this behavior. Given the name of a module, use the automatic mocking system to generate a mocked version of the module for you.
This is useful when you want to create a manual mock that extends the automatic mock's behavior. Creates a new mock function. The new function has no formal parameters and when called will return undefined. This functionality also applies to async functions.
Creates new class. The interface of the original class is maintained, all of the class member functions and properties will be mocked. Mocks a module with an auto-mocked version when it is being required. For example:. The second argument can be used to specify an explicit module factory that is being run instead of using Jest's automocking feature:.
The Jest Object
When importing a default export, it's an instruction to import the property named default from the export object:. The third argument can be used to create virtual mocks — mocks of modules that don't exist anywhere in the system:. Warning: Importing a module in a setup file as specified by setupTestFrameworkScriptFile will prevent mocking for the module in question, as well as all the modules that it imports.
Modules that are mocked with jest.
Another file that imports the module will get the original implementation even if it runs after the test file that mocks the module. Indicates that the module system should never return a mocked version of the specified module from require e. The most common use of this API is for specifying the module a given test intends to be testing and thus doesn't want automatically mocked.C++ Programming Tutorial 48 - Fill Array from Input
When using babel-jestcalls to mock will automatically be hoisted to the top of the code block. Use this method if you want to explicitly avoid this behavior. One example when this is useful is when you want to mock a module differently within the same file:. Using jest. Follow these if you don't want to use require in your tests:. When using babel-jestcalls to unmock will automatically be hoisted to the top of the code block.
Explicitly supplies the mock object that the module system should return for the specified module. On occasion there are times where the automatically generated mock the module system would normally provide you isn't adequate enough for your testing needs.When you're writing tests, you often need to check that values meet certain conditions. The expect function is used every time you want to test a value. You will rarely call expect by itself.
Instead, you will use expect along with a "matcher" function to assert something about a value. It's easier to understand this with an example. Let's say you have a method bestLaCroixFlavor which is supposed to return the string 'grapefruit'. Here's how you would test that:. In this case, toBe is the matcher function. There are a lot of different matcher functions, documented below, to help you test different things.
The argument to expect should be the value that your code produces, and any argument to the matcher should be the correct value. If you mix them up, your tests will still work, but the error messages on failing tests will look strange. You can use expect. For example, let's say that you're testing a number theory library and you're frequently asserting that numbers are divisible by other numbers. You could abstract that into a toBeDivisibleBy matcher:.
Matchers should return an object with two keys. Thus, when pass is false, message should return the error message for when expect x. And when pass is true, message should return the error message for when expect x. A boolean to let you know this matcher was called with the negated.
There are a number of helpful tools exposed on this. The most useful ones are matcherHintprintExpected and printReceived to format the error messages nicely. For example, take a look at the implementation for the toBe matcher:. When an assertion fails, the error message should give as much signal as necessary to the user so they can resolve their issue quickly. You should craft a precise failure message to make sure users of your custom assertions have a good developer experience.
You can use it inside toEqual or toBeCalledWith instead of a literal value. For example, if you want to check that a mock function is called with a non-null argument:. For example, if you want to check that a mock function is called with a number:.
For example, this code checks that rollDice returns only valid numbers:. This is often useful when testing asynchronous code, in order to make sure that assertions in a callback actually got called. For example, let's say that we have a few functions that all deal with state.
We can test this with:. The expect. For example, let's say you want to test that randomCoolNames only returns names that are cool:. This example also shows how you can nest multiple asymmetric matchers, with expect. This is often handy in conjunction with other asymmetric matchers.GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Have a question about this project?
Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. Is there a way to check if a component is an object, array or string? This would be similar to chai's 'should. No, there isn't. If you don't care what the contents are but just that it is a string.
I hoped expects. Certainly it should be thought about a bit more. My workaround was to add to the chain so that does the typeof part. Your alternatives are unacceptable as we lose all context of what we are testing. So we either get terrible assertion messages or we have to extend Jest to support these sorts of checks. Doesn't it make more sense for the maintainers of Jest to do this once as opposed to every person that uses requires these features implementing them on their own?
Create your own matchers with expect. If it gets popular, we may merge it to Jest core eventually. Note - if you're putting that extend in your setup files then you want it in setupTestFrameworkScriptFile NOT setupFiles as extend is available only in the former.
Thanks abritinthebay. Failed: expect For strings and arrays, here's an easy way to solve this: expect typeof errorToString error. The 2nd will work on newer versions of Node that provide the isArray method on arrays.
Objects take a bit more work but you get the idea. So abritinthebay did exactly what was requested by thymikee which was far more than the standard pull request. Now that that brave soul did all the work, when can the rest of us finally get this matcher without having to install yet another library? Are the maintainers still pushing the idea that this doesn't belong in Jest, or did this just fall off their radar?Jest uses "matchers" to let you test values in different ways.
This document will introduce some commonly used matchers. For the full list, see the expect API doc. You typically won't do much with these expectation objects except call matchers on them.
In this code. When Jest runs, it tracks all the failing matchers so that it can print out nice error messages for you. If you want to check the value of an object, use toEqual instead:. In tests you sometimes need to distinguish between undefinednulland falsebut you sometimes do not want to treat these differently. Jest contains helpers that let you be explicit about what you want.
You should use the matcher that most precisely corresponds to what you want your code to be doing. For floating point equality, use toBeCloseTo instead of toEqualbecause you don't want a test to depend on a tiny rounding error. If you want to test that a particular function throws an error when it's called, use toThrow.
The Jest Handbook is for you. We could write. Now what if we wanted to match 2 fields whose generation was tightly coupled? With naive matching, we would do:. The latter example seems better for readability and maintainability of the test. It has 1 assertion tests but makes sure the code is rock solid.
For example, if we want to make sure our oddArray has the right odds numbers under 10, we can do:. To match part of an Array in Jest, we can use expect.
For example, if we want to make sure our user has the right id and namewe can do:. In keeping with the user example, what if we wanted to check that we have the right ids for a list array of users.
By combining expect. Note: the parameter passed to arrayContaining must be an array, even if that array contains expect. To do the same without expect. In keeping with the user example, what if we wanted to check that we have the right ids for a list array of friends for a user? To check that something is not in an array or object, we can use expect. The examples for this post are at github. Find out more.
Curious about Advanced Jest Testing Features? I want this. We finish off by mentioning further resources that cover this topic. I want this close. Code with Hugo. Share this.