Bunch of tests reproducing #226 and #227#228
Bunch of tests reproducing #226 and #227#228jmatsushita wants to merge 2 commits intopouchdb:mainfrom
Conversation
|
Also yeah typically it is more useful to have separate PRs that contain only the changes necessary to repro the issue but just having a repro at all is helpful. :) |
reconbot
left a comment
reconbot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like supertest swallows some errors, so I'd make sure the tests fail when the assertions fail.
| .get('/foo') | ||
| .expect(200) | ||
| .expect(function (res) { | ||
| assert.equal( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be better as assert.ok
reconbot
left a comment
reconbot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have enough context to validate the problems being tested for, however I highlighted a few spots where superTest wont fail. It looks like a few places where the suite would return strings in stead of throwing errors got copied into your tests. Returning strings doesn't fail the test.
I mistakenly assumed this was due to using expect twice in a row. That's fine to do - however in order for it to pass errors to done, an Error() object must be thrown.
| if (!(typeof a === "object" && a.b === "c")) { | ||
| return "Default not shown"; | ||
| if (!(typeof a === 'object' && a.b === 'c')) { | ||
| return 'Default not shown'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be throw new Error('Default not shown'); for super test to pass it to done.
| .expect(function (res) { | ||
| if (JSON.parse(res.text).error !== 'not_found') { | ||
| return "Wrong response body"; | ||
| return 'Wrong response body'; |
| ); | ||
| // console.log(res.text); | ||
| if (!/<titl>PouchDB Server<\/title>/.test(res.text)) { | ||
| return "No '<title>PouchDB Server</title>' in response"; |
|
|
||
| new InMemPouchDB('foo'); | ||
|
|
||
| request(app) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be a little cleaner if you return request(app)'s promise chain instead of using done()
3 participants
Sorry it's quite messy but at least it reproduces those 2 issues on my machine. There's a lot of cruft since I'm having other problems I can't quite wrap my head around, but maybe this will help track down those first two problems.