Matt Phillips

@benjaminkay93 I think we probably want to do deep equality on them you can use the [`equals`](https://github.com/jest-community/jest-extended/blob/master/src/utils/index.js#L11) util to compare two objects deeply or the [`contains`](https://github.com/jest-community/jest-extended/blob/master/src/utils/index.js#L3) util to deeply check...

Hey @harelmoshe I like this! I would suggest changing the name to `.toIncludeAllMembersOfType(Type)` to be consistent with current [array matchers](https://github.com/jest-community/jest-extended#array). Do you want to send a PR for this?

Hey @acostalima #98 has now been published in v0.6.0. This matcher is possible to make now, like #98 to work the mocks will need to be asynchronous to be ran...

Hey @Pajn sorry for the delayed response! I like this a lot 😄 Fancy sending a PR? _Note:_ We have to wait for custom asymmetric matches to land in Jest's...

Hey guys sorry to take so long to chime in on this! I'm open to adding a partial matching assertion for lists 👍 Around the naming conventions, I would say...

@benjaminkay93 we already have [`.toSatisfyAll`](https://github.com/jest-community/jest-extended#toSatisfyAll) which takes a predicate :smile: @jadbox I think `.toIncludePartial(value)` and `.toIncludePartialTimes(value, times)` is probably sufficient.

@deser would you be able to share the failing test?

Hey @JShabtai @benjaminkay93 I like this matcher, nice work! I agree that the second range argument should be required. Do either of you fancy sending a PR for this?

@natealcedo have you started on this yet? If not @marharyta your help will be greatly appreciated :)

Hey @benjaminkay93 thanks for raising this, it's a very valid concern. I've gone missing lately, open source burn out is real. I think there is definitely room to introduce project...