feat: add missing tests to ndarray/base/every-by

[headlessNode]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown status: na
• task: lint_package_json status: na
• task: lint_repl_help status: na
• task: lint_javascript_src status: na
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: na
• task: lint_c_examples status: na
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: na
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

Progresses #2656 .

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• add tests for 100% test code coverage

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request:

• progresses [RFC]: achieve ndarray API parity with built-in JavaScript arrays  #2656

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
ndarray/base/every-by	$\color{red}4286/8573$ $\color{green}+49.99\%$	$\color{red}112/114$ $\color{green}+98.25\%$	$\color{red}9/43$ $\color{green}+20.93\%$	$\color{red}4286/8573$ $\color{green}+49.99\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[kgryte]

Overall, these tests look good. Main comment concerns ensuring that we support providing a callback execution context and ensuring that the callback is provided the correct arguments.

[headlessNode]

@kgryte Is this okay for resolving complex values?