This isn't officially compatible with the oldest version of Node that
Jasmine supports, but it works. If it stops working, we can always disable
linting in CI builds on older Node versions.
temp has seen some recent maintainer activity but there haven't been
any commits since 2021 and PRs have gone un-addressed for years. It's
one of the dev dependencies that depends on very old versions of rimraf.
* 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.
This is particularly helpful when reporting testing-library errors, which
have messages that contain blank lines and can be hundreds or even thousands
of lines long.
This was intended as a 3.0 migration aid for browser users who had
dependencies that triggered errors at load time. However, it was never
documented and never supported by jasmine-brower-runner, karma, or any
other commonly used tool for runing Jasmine in the browser. There is
no evidence of it actually being used. It is, however, starting to
show up in machine-generated "tutorials".
These are similar to `expect` and `expectAsync` except that they throw
exceptions rather than recording matcher failures as spec/suite failures.
They're intended to support using Jasmine matchers in testing-library's
`waitFor`, and also provide a way to integration-test custom matchers.
These funtions are not equivalent to `expect` and `expectAsync` and should
not be used in situations where you want a matcher failure to reliably fail
the spec. Whether that happens depends on the structure of the surrounding
code. In general, you should only use `throwUnless` when you expect
something (which could be your own code or library code like `waitFor`) to
catch the resulting exception.
Fixes#2003.
Fixes#1980.
