Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

question : a function named pending () triggered the 'no-disabled-tests' error. my bad? #149

Closed
lsuarez-tiempo-dev opened this issue Sep 3, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #155

Comments

@lsuarez-tiempo-dev
Copy link

I just read that pending is a jasmine global that allows you not run the test.
effectively disabling it.

Our code imports a value and then runs its it.
It appears the parser is confusing it with the jasmine global.
without being to careful with the syntax, This is basically what we're doing:

import { pending } from './myActions' ; 

describe('the pending action creator should return correct object', ()=>{
    it('should work correctly' , ()=>{
      expect(pending()).toStrictEqual({type:'FETCH_ALL_ALBUMS_PENDING'});
   })
})

does this rule notice if you import the function before assuming you're using the jasmine global and hence, disabling the test?
or is it an issue with the code?

@lsuarez-tiempo-dev lsuarez-tiempo-dev changed the title a function named pending () triggered the 'no-disabled-tests' error question : a function named pending () triggered the 'no-disabled-tests' error. my bad? Sep 3, 2018
@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 3, 2018

A PR fixing this would be most welcome! We should only detect usage of a global pending calls, not locally declared or imported ones

@macklinu
Copy link
Collaborator

I'll push up a PR for this one. 👍

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Sep 21, 2018

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 21.22.1 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants