-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
test(deferObservable): add type definition test #1479
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
This might be the wrong time to point this out... but I have NO IDEA what these tests do. I find them almost unreadable.
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 don't think there's wrong time, or even it'd be great time since we don't have much test for this yet. :)
Basically this test is ensuring type definition is 'works' as it's actual functionality does, for instance in case of this one
defer
, type should support casesobservable<T>
, subscribe should carry over type T so you can access its properties without type errorsboth of declaration in line 82 / 83 illustrates those usecases, and since it's compile time it is being verified when test case is being compiled. If those are not working as intended, compiler will throw out messages of expected type vs. provided one.
I also agree it could be possibly confusing to consume this kind of test (small one would be ok, but case like this? https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJS/pull/1189/files) and it'd be great if there's suggestion how to improve this or requirement should be added for better visibility. Since there is barely no test yet, changes can be easily introduced.
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.
it seems like it would be better just to work that into the TypeScript of our actual tests. Since those will cause the compilation of the spec file themselves to fail and thus cause the tests to fail. Do we really need an additional test that doesn't seem to do anything once it's transpiled?
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.
feasible opinion. In most cases test cases already consumes type definitions, so probably won't need to be covered once again via explicit. I remember few cases that test case does not include all of possible type definition cases though - start with opt out and only add necessary cases once it's being noticed maybe better way to go?
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.
overloaded signature like combinelatest (#1189) might be few edge cases need these kind of test cases.