Repository navigation
Add test.todo to match it.todo in node:test #47897
Description
What is the problem this feature will solve?
In the Node test runner (https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#test-runner) we have describe.todo and it.todo to designate suites/tests which do not exist yet but we're planning on adding. The describe > it syntax is one option of declaring tests, though, there is also just test in the API. For those of us who prefer test over describe, there is no shorthand test.todo, only the test method todo option: https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#testname-options-fn
What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?
Add test.todo similarly to how it.todo currently exists:
namespace it {
// Shorthand for skipping a test, same as `it([name], { skip: true }[, fn])`.
function skip(name?: string, options?: TestOptions, fn?: ItFn): void;
function skip(name?: string, fn?: ItFn): void;
function skip(options?: TestOptions, fn?: ItFn): void;
function skip(fn?: ItFn): void;
// Shorthand for marking a test as `TODO`, same as `it([name], { todo: true }[, fn])`.
function todo(name?: string, options?: TestOptions, fn?: ItFn): void;
function todo(name?: string, fn?: ItFn): void;
function todo(options?: TestOptions, fn?: ItFn): void;
function todo(fn?: ItFn): void;
}What alternatives have you considered?
Not doing it - we do have the test todo option so a shorthand is a QOL/DX improvement not a blocker of anything. I don't see the reason for why it should have it and test not though. Seems like parity on these would not hurt anything.
Activity
MoLow commentedon May 7, 2023
CC @cjihrig - this does not exist mainly due to your objection so the API would remain simple. do you still object to this change?
cjihrig commentedon May 7, 2023
I do still want the API to remain simple - even small changes add up. I also think this API exactly duplicates existing functionality so it doesn't really buy us anything.
That said, it keeps coming up and I'm tired of repeating myself so I won't block it.
TomasHubelbauer commentedon May 7, 2023
I honestly just find it weird to have to import
itfortodowhen I'm usingtestfor everything else. Simple API is a great goal of course, but it seems like this parity betweentestanditwould reduce surprises and align with user's expectations so as a result arguably it being the would be "simpler" in some sense. Just my 0.02 USD as a user.cjihrig commentedon May 7, 2023
I didn't want to add that API for
it()either.test_runner: add shorthands to `test`
test_runner: add shorthands to `test`
test_runner: add shorthands to `test`
test_runner: add shorthands to `test`
ForbiddenEra commentedon Jul 19, 2023
Hopefully not too OT but .. should we have the same for
beforeandafter, IIRC I was only able to usebeforeEachandafterEachwithtest..?