unexpected-sinon

unexpected-sinon copied to clipboard

Here is everything you need to know about this upgrade. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request. ### What changed?...

depfu[bot]

Was called negation is missing in assertion signature in documentation

2

It is possible to assets `expect(mySpy, 'was not called')`. But the documentation doesn't show this assertion in the left hand menu, nor does it appear in the DSL for `was...

Munter

Browser build location consistency

7

While implementing browser builds of many of the the modules I've noticed a couple of inconsistencies that I think are making setting this stuff up a little more tricky that...

alexjeffburke

Remove the 'was [always] called with [exactly]' assertion

21

See #29. - [x] deprecate `was called with` in the docs - [x] deprecate `was called with` with `console.warn` - [ ] wait a while so users have had the...

papandreou

See how it is done in https://github.com/unexpectedjs/unexpected/blob/master/.travis.yml

sunesimonsen

See the setup in https://github.com/unexpectedjs/unexpected/

sunesimonsen

I once did something like this: ``` js var spy1 = sinon.spy().named('spy1'); spy1(123); var spy2 = sinon.spy().named('spy2'); expect([spy1], 'to have calls satisfying', function () { spy1(123); spy2(456); }); ``` ......

papandreou

Not sure if this has been discussed before but what are your views on this? I would argue in favour of `expect(foo, 'to have been called')` mostly because it conforms...

joelmukuthu

Improve the documentation for the assertions

1

There seems to be some confusion around the sematics of [was called with](http://unexpected.js.org/unexpected-sinon/assertions/spy/was-called-with/) so we need to document that a bit better. Mention that it uses `to equal` semantics by...

sunesimonsen