Added some tests with Jest #2
Conversation
yujhenchen
left a comment
yujhenchen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added some comments—feel free to take a look. I'll continue reviewing the other files in the coming weeks. Thanks for your contributions and patience!
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('should reject an email without required fields', () => { | ||
| const invalidEmail: any = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You don't need to specify the any type for invalidEmail because TypeScript will infer its type based on the assigned value. This ensures that passing invalidEmail to isValidEmail will trigger a compiler error if the email object is invalid. As the image below
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('should reject an email with invalid types', () => { | ||
| const invalidEmail: any = { |
| expect(res.body.data).toBe('Operation successful'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should allow APIRequest and APIResponse without generics', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you explain a bit more about this test case. Why it's necessary to test if APIRequest and APIResponse can be cast as non-generic?
| const OtpModel: IOtpModel = { | ||
| create: jest.fn(), | ||
| findOne: jest.fn(), | ||
| } as any; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
: IOtpModel infer the type of OtpModel, not need to tell the TypeScript compiler to treat it as any type. Besides, avoid using any
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I love the idea of mocking and testing these two functions—it's really helpful and great!
| createdAt: new Date(), | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| (OtpModel.create as jest.Mock).mockResolvedValueOnce(otpData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the function create is defined correctly at the previous declaration step, not need to convert the data type into jest.Mock again here
2 participants
I added some tests with Jest to some features.