The old style of merging all of a function's variable declarations into
a single statement made some sense back in the days of var, but there's
no reason to keep doing it now that we use const and let.
This isn't comprehensive but it should be broad enough to ensure that most
people who would be affected by blocking monkey patching see a warning.
Covers the jasmine namespace as well as classes that are monkey patched by
zone.js.
Replacing globals (describe/it/etc) doesn't trigger a warning because they
belong to the user and are expected to be replaced.
The autotick feature mistakenly does not account for the clock being a
singleton and the re-installation of the clock causes the auto ticking
exit conditions to become true again, before it has a chance to break.
It doesn't look like there's a reliable way to test setTimeout throttling
prevention. The underlying behavior is too nondeterministic. This test
failed at a significant rate in browsers where throttling prevention worked,
simply due to setTimeout taking longer than expected (e.g. 130ms for the
entire test vs an expected <= 5oms). When run in Safari, where setTimeout
throttling prevention doesn't work, it would incorrectly pass if run early
enough in the test order. This is presumably because setTimeout throttling
is influenced by the setTimeout calls made by Jasmine itself prior to
running the test.
* fixes the throttling timeout test which incorrectly converted
from milliseconds to seconds before making an assertion expecting
milliseconds.
* reduces number of timeouts from 2000 to 100, which is still more than enough
to observe throttling (or lackthereof).
* Omits Node from the test since it does not throttle timeouts
Testing with mock clocks can often turn into a real struggle when
dealing with situations where some work in the test is truly async and
other work is captured by the mock clock. This can happen for many
reasons, but as one example:
An asynchonrous change from a task in the mocked clock may change DOM where
a resize observer then gets triggered. This browser API is truly asynchronous
and would require the user to wait real time for it to fire. If there is
follow-up work after the resize observer fires, it may be captured by the mock
clock again. This would require the tester to write something like the
following:
```
// flush the timer
jasmine.clock().tick();
// wait for resize observer
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve));
// flush follow-up work from the resize observer callback
jasmine.clock().tick();
```
When using mock clocks, testers are always forced to write tests with intimate
knowledge of when the mock clock needs to be ticked. Oftentimes, the
purpose of using a mock clock is to speed up the execution time of the
test when there are timeouts involved. It is not often a goal to test
the exact timeout values. This can cause tests to be riddled with
`tick`. It ideal for test code to be written in a way
that is independent of whether a mock clock is installed. For example:
```
document.getElementById('submit');
// https://testing-library.com/docs/dom-testing-library/api-async/#waitfor
await waitFor(() => expect(mockAPI).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1))
```
When mock clocks are involved, the above may not be possible if there is
some delay involved between the click and the request to the API.
Instead, developers would need to manually tick the clock beyond the
delay to trigger the API call.
This commit attempts to resolve these issues by adding a feature to the
clock which allows it to advance on its own with the passage of time,
just as clocks do without mocks installed. It also allows for some
breathing time so any unmocked micro and macrotasks are given space to
execute as well.
This feature would also address both #1725 and #1932. `asyncTick` can be
accomplished by enabling the auto tick feature and then waiting for a
promise with a timout to be resolved
(`await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 20))`) where
`setTimeout` is captured by the mock clock and flushed while the code is
waiting for the promise to resolve.
resolves#1725resolves#1932
All credit goes to @stephenfarrar for this.
Add specs to test if issue #655 is present: the handler of an interval
cannot successfully clear the same interval that generated it's
invocation.
The most direct test consist in setting an interval with a handler that
calls clearInterval over that same interval and make the clock tick for
double of it's period. If the issue is present the interval's handler
will be called twice. If the issue is not present, the first invocation
of the handler will avoid a second one (because of the clearInterval).
Another test is included in order to check if recurring scheduled
functions are rescheduled before being called. Doing this in the reverse
order is the exact cause of the issue.
All timeouts and intervals set during a tick were being scheduled to run
at delay + end-of-tick, instead of delay + time-of-outer-timeout.
Scheduled run-at times were shifted because currentTime was being
incremented before executing scheduled functions.
Additionally, the execute loop was iterating over a functions-to-run
array, created from scheduledFunctions before starting. Any changes to
scheduledFunctions were being ignored during the tick, and the next tick
would ignore any functions which should have been executed in the past.
The commit is a rewrite of DelayedFunctionScheduler, preserving the
public interface. Execution of scheduled functions updates currentTime
on each iteration, and each time takes the functions with the lowest
runAtMillis from the schedule, if they aren't higher than endTime.
- Will replace rake core_specs.
- Remove obsolete dependencies & files -- most of these were for build tasks we
are no longer using. Notably, rspec and spec_helper were deleted.
Jasmine spies now have a 'and' property which allows the user to
change the spy's execution strategy-- such as '.and.callReturn(4)'
and a 'calls' property which allows inspection of the calls a spy
has received.
* This is a breaking change *
There is a CallTracker that keeps track of all calls and arguments
and a SpyStrategy which determines what the spy should do when it
is called.
