Ensure all tests have an expect() or the expect argument.

[mikesherov]

So, a Qunit test can be written like this:

test("Unit Testing Environment", function () {
    expect(1);
    ok( true, "message );
});

but it can also be written like this:

test("Unit Testing Environment", 1, function () {
    ok( true, "message );
});

All tests that don't have a logically determined number of expected tests should use the second signature.

[rwaldron]

Would be nice, but some tests have generated assertions, so the expect isn't known until execution enters the test callback.. Not sure how often that happens, maybe those tests could be rewritten

[dmethvin]

Right, I think that was Mike's "logically determined" point. The fact that you don't need either a test count argument or an expect() is a bug IMO.

[scottgonzalez]

Maybe a bug in core :-P

https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/blob/master/tests/unit/testsuite.js#L24

[rwaldron]

I was conversationally adding details for whoever reads this ;-)

Maybe we should shim a temporary "expect detect" path to identify missing "expects"

[rwaldron]

Ugh, was typing that on mobile... Please ignore. I'd forgotten about the requireExpects option

[dmethvin]

I'd just never gone looking for it. Let's reject the heck out of tests with no expect.

[jzaefferer]

@rwldrn look at what Scott posted, QUnit already has a feature.

As for the test argument vs expect, I strongly prefer calling expect all the time. I probably should've just removed the expect argument to test a long time ago.

[jzaefferer]

Btw. requireExpects is "now" documented here: http://api.qunitjs.com/QUnit.config/ - maybe there's something else people haven't been aware of?

[rwaldron]

On Oct 14, 2012 3:55 PM, "Jörn Zaefferer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@rwldrn look at what Scott posted, QUnit already has a feature.

I think the lines are crossed.

As for the test argument vs expect, I strongly prefer calling expect all the time. I probably should've just removed the expect argument to test a long time ago.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[rwaldron]

From a DRY perspective, I agree with Mike, but the benefit of an explicit expect() call is complete clarity of intention

[mikesherov]

@gnarf37 has already been writing his tests with the 3 arguments version, most other tests call expect in the body. I don't care either way as long as we're consistent.

[gnarf]

I started copying someone else's pattern - I could go for either.

[rwaldron]

James Huston is on this ticket @james-huston

[rwaldron]

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/c2a6bad60a2b2d84081ef369a023f75c4bd32ad5

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/57aa7977dd6d88898b5d1cf748a4f85c1e7a3bee

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/6ac87167893e1de24761eaff47bbf9a20d0d6f98

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/0c447434963bbdd6c631acfc38e51022db949a8b

[rwaldron]

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/611d7660cd23747bcc7948ad2ee2a663e00ff105

[rwaldron]

Done! Thanks @james-huston