fix: .toHaveValue() / .toHaveFormValues() on input type range now expect a number

[Okazari]

What:

This PR aim to fix #364.

Why:

In my use case on a react app, i'm using a constant that is a number for a default value of an input type range. I couldn't use it in my test without hacking a bit since .toHaveValue() were expecting a string instead of a number.

How:

It makes jest-dom consider <input type="range /> value getter the same as <input type="number" />

Checklist:

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

I consider this change as a breaking change since it would break any test related to range inputs.

[Okazari]

Hey there 👋 the PR template mention to Update type definitions but i didn't manage to find any in the repo. Could you point me were are those ?

Thanks 😄

[nickmccurdy]

They're in DefinitelyTyped.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #365 (4f4774b) into main (948d90f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 4f4774b differs from pull request most recent head bf8c8c5. Consider uploading reports for the commit bf8c8c5 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #365   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           26        26           
  Lines          630       616   -14     
  Branches       236       224   -12     
=========================================
- Hits           630       616   -14     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/utils.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/to-be-invalid.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-be-visible.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-have-class.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-have-focus.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-be-disabled.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-have-accessible-name.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/to-have-accessible-description.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[nickmccurdy]

This looks good, but should we leave the breaking changes for a major release or consider this a bug fix?

[gnapse]

FWIW, I was planning to take some time next week to gather this and at least one other PR that are breaking changes, and make a single new major release with them all. I was also planning to include in this major release the removal of all the custom matchers that we already have marked as deprecated for various versions now. There are 2 or 3 of them.