fix(valid-mock-module-path): don't report virtual mocks

[Xunnamius]

Fixes #1945

[G-Rath]

you're missing a bunch of cases - what if...

• an array or function is passed in as the param
• a variable is passed as the param
• an object is passed, without any properties
• an object is passed, which has a spread
• an object is passed, with a property that is not virtual
• an object is passed, with a computed property
  • ...whose key comes from a variable
  • ...whose key is a string literal...
    • ...which is virtual
    • ...which is not virtual
  • ...whose key is a template string literal...
    • ...which is virtual
    • ...which is not virtual
    • ...which has interpolation
• an object is passed, with the virtual property but whose value...
  • ...is a variable
  • ...is a variable, and is shorthanded
  • ...is an array or function
  • ...is a number

Within these cases, you should find your missing coverage 🙂

[Xunnamius]

you're missing a bunch of cases - what if...

I assume this is a response to my "a test case that can trigger the else path" question? If so, I'll see if one of these triggers the else path. Many of these I've already considered (computed property, passing function, object spread, etc) 🙂

[G-Rath]

Yes and no - these are all tests that you should have, because most of them have different AST shapes, and I know they will cover your else branches (specifically, spread is the test you're missing for coverage as properties is type ObjectLiteralElement which is an alias for Property | SpreadElement, but we still want the majority of the situations I've mentioned explicitly tested)

[Xunnamius]

Spread was literally the first thing I tried, haha. However, I'm getting a syntax error from your test pipeline when I include it. Is there something specific I should add there to enable that syntax?

As for the other test cases, looking at the existing tests for this rule, I tried to match their level of exhaustiveness. Unfortunately I'm approaching the end of my timebox for this, so I can't go much further beyond that this week

[Xunnamius]

However, I'm getting a syntax error from your test pipeline when I include it.

Looks like this:

valid-mock-module-path › invalid › jest.mock('../module/does/not/exist', undefined, { ...{ v: true } })

    assert(received)

    Expected value to be equal to:
      true
    Received:
      false
    
    Message:
      A fatal parsing error occurred: Parsing error: Unexpected token ...

      at runRuleForItem (node_modules/eslint/lib/rule-tester/rule-tester.js:894:4)

(I'm coming from babel land, where it's usually an incantation/config property/package to get syntaxes working)

[G-Rath]

I'm getting a syntax error from your test pipeline when I include it.

You want to adjust the configuration being passed to RuleTester, specifically the ecmaVersion - I believe you want 2015:

eslint-plugin-jest/src/rules/__tests__/prefer-equality-matcher.test.ts

Lines 5 to 10 in d50f50c

	const ruleTester = new RuleTester({
	parser: espreeParser,
	parserOptions: {
	ecmaVersion: 2015,
	},
	});

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 29.15.2 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀