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

new rule: require.requireActual -> jest.requireActual #559

Closed
dylang opened this issue May 2, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #560
Closed

new rule: require.requireActual -> jest.requireActual #559

dylang opened this issue May 2, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #560
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@dylang
Copy link

dylang commented May 2, 2020

Jest 26 will no longer support the long deprecated require.requireActual, and should transition code to jest.requireActual instead.

Same thing with require.requireMock.

jestjs/jest@d0623eb

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 3, 2020

Having a rule for this and autofixing it would be great - we could call it out in the blog post. While it's a simple search and replace, it'd still be nice to do 🙂

@G-Rath G-Rath self-assigned this May 3, 2020
@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

G-Rath commented May 3, 2020

@SimenB any ideas on a good name?

  • prefer-jest-require
  • no-require-require
  • replace-require-require-with-jest-require
  • use-jest-require (<-- I'm leaning towards this one)
  • ???

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 3, 2020

no-deprecated-functions? Then we can stick more on it. I wanted to remove a few deprecated functions from the jest object as well, but Christoph wanted to wait (aka, FB uses these and he wants the upgrade internally to be quick and smooth): jestjs/jest#9853

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2020

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 23.9.0 🎉

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
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants