docs(JestObjectAPI.md): incorrect specification to the method jest.replaceProperty #14388
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for jestjs ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
Not sure. That can be a bug in code as well. Hm.. Perhaps not (see this test). @michal-kocarek Would you remember why |
docs/JestObjectAPI.md
Outdated
| @@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ Creates a mock function similar to `jest.fn` but also tracks calls to `object[me | |||
|
|
|||
| :::note | |||
|
|
|||
| By default, `jest.spyOn` also calls the **spied** method. This is different behavior from most other test libraries. If you want to overwrite the original function, you can use `jest.spyOn(object, methodName).mockImplementation(() => customImplementation)` or `jest.replaceProperty(object, methodName, jest.fn(() => customImplementation));` | |||
| By default, `jest.spyOn` also calls the **spied** method. This is different behavior from most other test libraries. If you want to overwrite the original function, you can use `jest.spyOn(object, methodName).mockImplementation(() => customImplementation)`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is how it sounded before #13496
| By default, `jest.spyOn` also calls the **spied** method. This is different behavior from most other test libraries. If you want to overwrite the original function, you can use `jest.spyOn(object, methodName).mockImplementation(() => customImplementation)`. | |
| By default, `jest.spyOn` also calls the **spied** method. This is different behavior from most other test libraries. If you want to overwrite the original function, you can use `jest.spyOn(object, methodName).mockImplementation(() => customImplementation)` or `object[methodName] = jest.fn(() => customImplementation)`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This behavior still working on "jest": "^29.6.2":
object[methodName] = jest.fn(() => customImplementation)Let me show how the things are working in my example:
class Math {
total;
constructor() {}
sum(num1, num2) {
return num1 + num2;
}
}example.test.js
math["sum"] = (num1, num2) => num1 * num2; // works well
jest.spyOn(math, "sum").mockImplementation((num1, num2) => num1 * num2); // works well
jest.replaceProperty(math, "total", 20); // works welljest.replaceProperty(math, "sum", jest.fn((num1, num2) => num1 * num2)); // Cannot replace the `sum` property because it is a function. Use `jest.spyOn(object, 'sum')` instead.
I think maybe we just have a mismatch in the docs 🤔 |
|
Yes, it would be enough to change the sentence as it was before #13496. Just like in the suggestion which I left. Could you do that, please? |
Of course! Done ✅ |
|
Perfect! Could you make the same change in all applicable versions in the |
Yes! Done too ✅ |
|
We have a fail on step |
|
That’s right. The fail is not related, #14371 should fix that. |
vinicinbgs
changed the title
|
I merged with main and passed in all steps on CI. Maybe good to merge? |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Summary
The issue is correlated with the documentation that propose the use of
jest.replacePropertyto mock amethodinside a classIf you follow this recommendation your test will output:
Test plan