Conversation
Contributor
|
Thank you Joshhhhh!!! Will take a look and merge in a bit |
Tobbe
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2024
Contributor
|
I'll let you merge @dac09 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The vite package used the node test runner. This PR switches it over to vitest.
The transition was not difficult.
beforeandafterfor the node test runner have their vitest equivalents inbeforeAllandafterAll. See: https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#afterfn-options whereafteris described as acting likeafterAll.assertwas not too difficult to transition as they could be switched to.toEqualand.not.toEqualfswas achieved using spys andmockImplementationOnce. There was no clear need to useOncebut it felt safer to assume that rather than continue to return the mock value for eternity.@dac09 As requested I've switched this one out. One of the ts expect error comments is gone but one remains. From what I can see it seems to be a valid complaint - the type of
PluginOptionlooks pretty funky.