feat: toHaveAccessibilityValue() matcher

[mdjastrzebski]

What:

Matcher for matching accessibility value.

Why:

Current toHaveProp is performing strict matching of accessibilityValue prop, while matching based only on some a11y value entries is useful.

How:

Matching code based on *ByA11yValue matcher.

Checklist:

• Documentation added to the docs
• Typescript definitions updated
• Tests
• Ready to be merged

@pierrezimmermannbam, @AugustinLF, @MattAgn could you help with reviewing this?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #127 (ca4ca1a) into main (f050c41) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #127   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           10        11    +1     
  Lines          193       208   +15     
  Branches        60        66    +6     
=========================================
+ Hits           193       208   +15     

Flag	Coverage Δ
node-14	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
node-16	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
node-18	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/extend-expect.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/to-have-accessibility-value.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[AugustinLF]

Seems good to me. Might be nice to have a second review, I'm not as familiar with this lib as with RNTL.

[pierrezimmermannbam]

Looks good to me as well ! What concerns me a bit though is that I feel like there is a lot of duplicated code between testing-library/jest-native and RNTL, I wonder if it wound't make sense if this library was part of the RNTL repo (or some other solution that would allow to share code more easily) ?

[mdjastrzebski]

@pierrezimmermannbam There is indeed some code duplication between RNTL and JN. But there are also parts when the they have same concepts but different behaviour which is even worse. I share you point that about bringing them closer together in some form e.g. monorepo or including them in our package, etc. There is definitely benefit in RNTL users using JN matchers, as some assertions are better expressed through queries and some through Jest matchers.

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 5.3.0 🎉

The release is available on:

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

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀