Open mm-gmbd opened 5 years ago
Same here. I was surprised by the lack of "resolvedWith" and "fulfilledWith". But I think the problem is in how we’re should compare a Promise result with the expectation - eq vs eql
expect(promise).to.eventually.be.eq(expectation);
expect(promise).to.eventually.be.eql(expectation);
seems like a sensible idea to have fulfilledWith
. it'd be pretty simple I think compared to rejectedWith
since rejectedWith
supports passing errors, error constructors, etc. meanwhile, fulfilledWith
would literally do the same as an equality check
if either of you want to contribute that, i'd be happy to review
otherwise I can try find time to do it
There may be a great reason to not include this, but it feels a bit odd (as I'm starting to write some async test cases) to provide a
rejectedWith
but not afulfilledWith
.I understand that I can use
.to.eventually.be.fulfilled.and.equal
, but I'm wondering -- are:.to.eventually.be.rejected.and.equal()
, and.to.eventually.be.rejectedWith()
not essentially the same?
If so, I'd think that the
fulfilledWith
"shortcut" should also be included. If they're not the same, then we can close this request due to my ignorance :smile: