Enhance toHaveValue's error message

[maltebaer]

Describe the feature you'd like:

I often forget/do not consider the type I've set on my input while making assertions on it. When I mistakenly expect the wrong type using the toHaveValue matcher, my test will -- obviously -- fail with, e.g.

Expected the element to have value:
  8
Received:
  8

To already have an idea of what throws the error when looking at the console, the message could be enhanced with the values types

Expected the element to have value:
  8 (number)
Received:
  8 (string)

Suggested implementation:

When the expected and received value have loose equality, type information could be added to the output.

  let expectedTypedValue = expectedValue;
  let receivedTypedValue = receivedValue;
  if (expectedValue == receivedValue)  {
    expectedTypedValue = `${expectedValue} (${typeof expectedValue})`;
    receivedTypedValue = `${receivedValue} (${typeof receivedValue})`;
  }

Describe alternatives you've considered:

I did not consider any alternative solution since the expected changes are so small.

Teachability, Documentation, Adoption, Migration Strategy:

No need for the user to adopt the way the library is used.

As many developers suggest to get started with contributing to open-source by improving the tools/libraries you already use and if you consider this change a helpful improvement on the DX, I would be really happy to submit my first PR to an open-source project I discovered recently and already fell in love with.

Thank you for this great library ❤

[gnapse]

This is a great suggestion indeed.

Would be great if you contributed the change as well. Are you up to?

The implementation is simple as you suggest. It's a matter of modifying this file, and in particular get the customized typed values into lines 38 and 40 in that fragment over there.

[maltebaer]

Awesome!

Let me watch http://kcd.im/pull-request and then I will contribute my solution 😃

function toHaveValue(htmlElement, expectedValue) {
  (0, _utils.checkHtmlElement)(htmlElement, toHaveValue, this);
  
  if (htmlElement.tagName.toLowerCase() === 'input' && ['checkbox', 'radio'].includes(htmlElement.type)) {
    throw new Error('input with type=checkbox or type=radio cannot be used with .toHaveValue(). Use .toBeChecked() for type=checkbox or .toHaveFormValues() instead');
  }
  
  const receivedValue = (0, _utils.getSingleElementValue)(htmlElement);
  const expectsValue = expectedValue !== undefined;

  let expectedTypedValue = expectedValue;
  let receivedTypedValue = receivedValue;
  if (expectedValue == receivedValue)  {
    expectedTypedValue = `${expectedValue} (${typeof expectedValue})`;
    receivedTypedValue = `${receivedValue} (${typeof receivedValue})`;
  }

  return {
    pass: expectsValue ? (0, _isEqualWith.default)(receivedValue, expectedValue, _utils.compareArraysAsSet) : Boolean(receivedValue),
    message: () => {
      const to = this.isNot ? 'not to' : 'to';
      const matcher = (0, _jestMatcherUtils.matcherHint)(`${this.isNot ? '.not' : ''}.toHaveValue`, 'element', expectedValue);
      return (0, _utils.getMessage)(matcher, `Expected the element ${to} have value`, expectsValue ? expectedTypedValue : '(any)', 'Received', receivedTypedValue);
    }
  };
}

[eps1lon]

Does toHaveValue check attributes or properties? If it checks attributes it should flat out throw a TypeError if it doesn't receive a string. For properties writing out the type would indeed be nice.

[gnapse]

It checks the property. It even does some nice things to it (like gathering all selected option values from a multi-select into an array, or converting to number the value of a <input type="number" />). Check it out here.

[maltebaer]

To me it looks like it checks the value property and not the attributes .

[afontcu]

Solved in #219