Test setup #5
Test setup #5
Conversation
|
👍 Pretty cool. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RodMachado cf my comments in slack about the yarn.lock file.
| @@ -11,5 +11,14 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "settings": { | |||
| "import/resolver": "meteor", | |||
| }, | |||
| "globals": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a couple of other ways we could do this (@pauldowman do you have an opinion here?):
{
"env": {
"mocha": true
}
}
The above is maybe a little cleaner/semantic. One side-effect of setting these is that it affects non-test code. E.g., lodash has before and after methods, and lodash methods may be imported by name directly. app also seems like it could turn up. If we want to avoid that, we could ask testers to set this at the top of each test file:
/* eslint-env mocha */
That might be my preferred method, but I'm interested what anyone else thinks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rdickert
Fell free to change as you see fit. I don't have an opinion about this and you're probably better to decide what's the best method.
😄
| "babel-eslint": "4.x.x", | ||
| "babel-plugin-transform-runtime": "6.x.x", | ||
| "babel-polyfill": "6.x.x", | ||
| "babel-preset-es2015": "6.x.x", | ||
| "babel-preset-stage-2": "6.x.x", | ||
| "chai": "3.x.x", | ||
| "chai-spies": "^0.7.1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this package? It seems redundant with testdouble
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, using testdouble for that.
| @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ const graphql = (document, config = {}) => { | |||
| throw new Error(`graphql(react-apollo-helpers): Expected 1 graphQL operation. ${document.definitions.length} operations detected.`); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| const { name } = config; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bug fix. It probably belongs in a separate pr, but since it's needed here and is a one-liner, let's maybe not worry about it.
@rdickert
Basic test setup.
👍