Andreas Lind
Andreas Lind
`to have no calls satisfying` could look something like this: https://github.com/unexpectedjs/unexpected-sinon/pull/41
@SleepWalker Both of the above are in the just released unexpected-sinon 10.6.0: * [to have all calls satisfying](http://unexpected.js.org/unexpected-sinon/assertions/spy/to-have-all-calls-satisfying/) * [to have no calls satisfying](http://unexpected.js.org/unexpected-sinon/assertions/spy/to-have-no-calls-satisfying/) I hope that helps :)
Yeah, you shouldn't have to "invert" the criterion to achieve that :)
@sunesimonsen, see #29 for context.
It’s already marked as deprecated: http://unexpected.js.org/unexpected-sinon/assertions/spy/was-called-with/
The documentation link was for Sune as a reminder of where we are in the process. I still think we should remove it as per the plan we made, but...
@sunesimonsen, yes, at least :) But if new `was called with`s are being introduced almost 3 years after we put that notice in the docs,, clearly our deprecation strategy hasn't...
@sunesimonsen, yeah, that would be a step in the right direction, but I have a hunch that the new uses didn't come about via a lookup in the docs. It's...
Added the `console.warn` here: https://github.com/unexpectedjs/unexpected-sinon/issues/32 Sent PR to mocha here: https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/pull/3680
Since there is no build process in u-sinon I think it'd be annoying to version control an extra file, or even just publish an extra copy of it, for this...