Editor Actions: fix tests for apiFetch throwing errors #25987
Closed
Conversation
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
jsnajdr
added
[Type] Code Quality
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.19 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
gziolo
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2020
Member
gziolo
left a comment
gziolo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It requires rebase and it should be good to go 👍
Member
Author
|
This patch was already merged as one of the commits in #25990 🙂 That's why it conflicts with |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
editorpackage has a test for thetrashPostaction that tests whetherapiFetchfailure yields the correct results.But that test simulates the error in a way that doesn't happen when the real code is ran. Consider the following generator:
There are two ways how the
yieldstatement can throw an error:apiFetch()call fails and its return value is never yielded from the generator. Theiterator.next()call that waits for the yielded value will throw the error fromapiFetch()yielditself fails, because an error is thrown into the generator withiterator.throw( error )Our test simulates the error with method no. 1, by mocking the
apiFetchcontrol creator to throw an error. But control creators rarely ever fail: they return simple values and don't execute much code. There's also little reason to mock them.But in reality, the action will fail because an error from the real
apiFetchexecution will be thrown into it by theredux-routine/rungenruntime.That's why my patched test does here. The change removes a lot of code and makes the test simpler.
Mocking the control creators with Jest is not necessary -- we never, for example, do the
expect( fn ).toHaveBeenCalled()checks on them.