polish: clarify filtering test semantics #3816
Merged
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
I introduced use of expect.fail() in graphql#3760 mistakenly believing that expect.fail() will always cause the test to fail. Actually, expect.fail() just throws an error, and that error is wrapped is wrapped by GraphQL and then filtered, so the lines are reached. Fortunately, it's not a problem that the line is reached, as long as it is filtered correctly. The number of calls to next() may be more than 1 (in our case it is 2) depending on the # of ticks that it takes for the deferred fragment to resolve. So the test as written is intending to be overly strict, but is broken and so functions as desires. This commit makes no change to the test semantics, but changes the comment, the coverage ignore statement, and removes the confusing use of expect.fail, so that the test semantics are more clearly apparent.
✅ Deploy Preview for compassionate-pike-271cb3 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
|
Hi @yaacovCR, I'm @github-actions bot happy to help you with this PR 👋 Supported commandsPlease post this commands in separate comments and only one per comment:
|
yaacovCR
added
the
PR: polish 💅
yaacovCR
changed the title
yaacovCR
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
expect.fail() was mistakenly introduced in #3760 under the assumption that expect.fail() will always cause the test to fail, and that
.next()should be called at most once.Actually, thought, expect.fail() just throws an error,
.next()is called more than once, the error is produced and wrapped by GraphQL, but then, it is filtered, so the test passes.Fortunately, that's actually the desired behavior! It's ok if the number of calls to next() is more than 1 (in our case it is 2). The exact number of calls to next() depends on the # of ticks that it takes for the deferred fragment to resolve, which should be as low as possible, but that is a separate objective (with other PRs in the mix already aimed at reducing).
So the test as written is intending to be overly strict, but is broken and so functions as desires. This commit makes no change to the test semantics, but changes the comment, the coverage ignore statement, and removes the confusing use of expect.fail, so that the test semantics are more clearly apparent.