Extend toHaveFetched test output to show options diff

[tobilen]

Asserting against a certain output, especially a body, is currently very cumbersome.

Scenario: I want to mock a POST request with a specific body, and i want to piece together the body in a test-driven manner.

The assertion only tells us that fetchMock was not called with the right url, which is not even technically correct. This is what it looks like if i pass a wrong body:

The only way to proceed now is to manually console.log the calls i've received with fetchMock.calls() and see where it goes wrong.

In this PR i've extended the output to:

• json-parse the body (if possible)
• use jest-diff to display the diff between the expected options object and the received options object
• for all calls that match the filter

This is what the new output looks like:

[tobilen]

@wheresrhys anything missing from this PR?

[tobilen]

still waiting on an update here :)

[tobilen]

published under fetch-mock-jest-tobilen@1.0.3 for preview purposes

[tobilen]

published new version with latest jest version under fetch-mock-jest-tobilen@1.1.0

[petersendidit]

@wheresrhys Any thing we can do to help get this merged in? This would make dealing with assert failures much easier to understand.

[theghostbel]

Yeah, that's really a pain to distinguish between not-called API and called with a different request payload. Also have spent quite a lot of time just to figure out what's the cause for such an error report.

[tobilen]

Updated the fork to newest version of jest, available under fetch-mock-jest-tobilen@1.2.2

new functionality:
you're now able to use jest matches in the body you are expecting. for example:

fetch('http://example.com/path', {
	method: 'post',
	headers: {
		test: 'header',
	},
	body: {
		test: {
			value: "value"
		},
		otherValue: {
			value: "value"
		}
	}
})

it("matches when using jest expect matchers", () => {
	expect(fetch).toHavePosted('http://example.com/path', {
		method: 'post',
		headers: {
			test: 'header',
		},
		body: expect.objectContaining({
			test: {
				value: "value"
			}
		})
	});
})

[macdonaldr93]

+1 I was about to start looking into writing this. So nice to see someone has already written the code. What do we need to do to get this merged?

[macdonaldr93]

It's hard to see the diff on this. Any chance you could make the change without changing the tab?