.containDeep() depends on item order

[lobodpav]

These asserts work well:

• [1, 2, 3].should.containDeep([1, 2]);
• [1, 2, 3].should.containDeep([1, 3]);

However, changing order of items causes the assert to fail:

• [1, 2, 3].should.containDeep([3, 2]);

I would expect that the order of items in .containDeep() argument does not matter because I want to check if the checked array contains all items in the argument no matter the order.

[btd]

I agree and don't agree in the same time. I assume that array is ordered collection and that is why it check order in which elements presented. In opposite object goes unordered.

[lobodpav]

Good point. Could you mention that in the doc?

I solved this by

var arrayToCheck = [1, 2, 3];
[3, 2].forEach(function(item) {
    arrayToCheck.should.containDeep([item]);
});

but I thought it would be nice if I would not have to write so much boilerplate everywhere in my tests.

[btd]

Agree, about i can add methods like .containEql and .containDeep that just check existence. Any suggestion about name? (it seems switch for method will be not enough, also i am worry how to make it less confusing)

[lobodpav]

Yeah, was thinking about a good name too. First I thought I would rename the existing ones to .containEqlOrdered and .containDeepOrdered. But hard to say how many people adopted these already.

[yoshuawuyts]

I think .containEqlOrdered() and .containDeepOrdered() make the most sense. If you're looking to check something in a certain order, most of the time you'll do a .equal() anyway.

[btd]

I will close this as it already in master (will publish today or at weekend). If you have issues about it, pls create new one in shouldjs/should.js.