feat: add exact mode option for toHaveClass (#176)

[SergiCL]

Added exact mode option for toHaveClass matcher, as discussed in #176

How

<div data-test-id='test-element' class="hello world foo"></div>

const testElement = getByTestId('test-element')

// toHaveClas is true becose has EXACTLY defined set of classes
expect(testElement).toHaveClass('hello', 'world', 'foo', {exact: true})

// toHaveClas is false because has te set of classes, but it also has 'foo'
expect(testElement).not.toHaveClass('hello', 'world', {exact: true})

// if exact option is not passed or is set as false, it will continue working as before.
expect(testElement).toHaveClass('hello', 'world')
expect(testElement).toHaveClass('hello', 'world', {exact: false})

If exact option is not passed or is false, it will continue working as before these changes.

Checklist:

• Documentation
• Tests
• Updated Type Definitions
• Ready to be merged
  

[gnapse]

Oh no @SergiCL, I'm sorry it was not clear enough, but the API we decided when discussing this in #176 was to add a new matcher:

expect(element).toHaveClassList('class1', 'class2', 'class3')

Could you change this PR to add that instead, and leave toHaveClass intact?

[SergiCL]

Sure, no problem. I didn't understand it correctly.

expect(element).toHaveClassList('class1', 'class2', 'class3')

I think the name toHaveClassList can lead to confusion. jest-extended library makes a distinction between array matchers that could be used here:

• .toIncludeAllMembers([members])
• .toIncludeSameMembers([members])
• .toIncludeAnyMembers([members])

In my view something like toHaveSameClass could be clearer, and leaves the door open for a possible toHaveAnyClass if necessary in the future.

By the way, do you know why Travis' validation is failing?
When I run it locally with the same version of node and npm it works without problem.

[gnapse]

Can you bring up the naming change suggestion in the issue #176 (just so that the people that originally discuss this can chime in). I'll post my thoughts about it over there, but it kinda make sense your suggestion. Let's see what others think.

[benmonro]

🎉 Thanks for this!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #217 into master will not change coverage by %.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #217   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           19        19           
  Lines          245       257   +12     
  Branches        59        62    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits           245       257   +12     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/to-have-class.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eb51c17...01e9eeb. Read the comment docs.

[gnapse]

@all-contributors please add @SergiCL for code, test

[allcontributors]

@gnapse

I've put up a pull request to add @SergiCL! 🎉

[gnapse]

🎉 This PR is included in version 5.3.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀