Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

expect: Highlight substring differences when matcher fails, part 1 #8448

Merged
merged 16 commits into from May 27, 2019

Conversation

pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor

@pedrottimark pedrottimark commented May 9, 2019

Summary

Fixes #6881 although space and no-break space still look the same

If positive assertion fails with one-line strings for both expected and received:

Then if character difference with “semantic cleanup” has any common substring:

Display changes similar to Changed Files on GitHub:

  • Expected: inverse green for deleted characters
  • Received: inverse red for inserted characters

Else if no common substring, display without any inverse colors

Build:

EDIT: The following list is generally but not specifically true, because printDiffOrStringify moved to jest-matcher-utils package

License:

Does anyone know if I have correctly handled code with Apache License, Version 2.0?

  • added comment describing changes to cleanupSemantic.js
  • added file to .eslintignore and .prettierignore
  • added file path as exception to scripts/checkCopyrightHeaders.js

Residue:

  • Decide how to display results for multi-line strings (especially deleted or inserted newlines)
  • Discover whether long strings cause performance risk as had been for many lines
  • Apply to more changed strings (for example, property values) in future data-driven diff
  • Adapt for toThrow(object) which does not call the same helper function
  • Explore how to display results of failed substring match for toContain, toMatch, or toThrow [EDIT: and found its effectiveness to be disappointingly hit or miss]

Test plan

EDIT: Updated a distantly related snapshot test, see see #8448 (comment)

Existing tests pass, because they have no common substring with “semantic cleanup”

Added 1 snapshot each:

See also pictures in following comment

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

Example pictures baseline at left and improved at right

Change a word:

toBe

Change spaces to no-break spaces:

toEqual

Edit around a phrase:

toHaveProperty

I added a simpler example (than the above) to unit tests

Edit around and in a phrase:

toStrictEqual

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am not sure if the .d.ts file in src directory is correctly included in the build:

Here is packages/expect/build/cleanupSemantic.d.js

'use strict';

function _defineProperty(obj, key, value) {
  if (key in obj) {
    Object.defineProperty(obj, key, {
      value: value,
      enumerable: true,
      configurable: true,
      writable: true
    });
  } else {
    obj[key] = value;
  }
  return obj;
}

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thinking ahead to remove limitation on one-line strings in future pull request, what do y’all think about displaying inserted or deleted line break as U+21B5 downwards arrow with corner leftwards:

multiline

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 11, 2019

Oh my god, I'm so excited! 😀

I am not sure if the .d.ts file in src directory is correctly included in the build:

It should be, we had the same thing @jest/reporters and it worked

CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@SimenB SimenB left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So good!

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 11, 2019

Would it make sense for the vendored file to live in diff-sequences and not expect?

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 11, 2019

And yes, rendering some explicit newline character would be awesome, like ava does

@pedrottimark pedrottimark changed the title expect: Improve report when matcher fails, part 20 expect: Highlight substring differences when matcher fails, part 1 May 11, 2019
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 11, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #8448 into master will increase coverage by 0.45%.
The diff coverage is 79.79%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8448      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.32%   62.78%   +0.45%     
==========================================
  Files         266      267       +1     
  Lines       10734    11021     +287     
  Branches     2615     2674      +59     
==========================================
+ Hits         6690     6919     +229     
- Misses       3461     3497      +36     
- Partials      583      605      +22
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
packages/expect/src/print.ts 98.76% <100%> (+1.03%) ⬆️
packages/expect/src/cleanupSemantic.ts 76.8% <76.8%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update db5e472...dd56dec. Read the comment docs.

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SimenB it’s related to your #8085 (comment) although jest-reporters had no src/*.js file:

It seems like those files are not copied over by tsc

there are some d.js files there, funnily enough

I think the problem is https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/master/scripts/build.js#L122-L125

  • it does not copy the .d.ts file because it does match TS_FILES_PATTERN
  • but then I assume that babel compiles it as if it is source code

Does it make sense to swap the logic to avoid double negative in if-else as follows:

if (
  micromatch.isMatch(file, JS_FILES_PATTERN) ||
  (micromatch.isMatch(file, TS_FILES_PATTERN) &&
    !micromatch.isMatch(D_TS_FILES_PATTERN))
) {
  // compile file
} else {
  // copy file
}

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 11, 2019

They should work - we deleted some in #8294 which worked fine previously.

It's the tsc run that should copy it, not babel. Try to run build:ts

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good question about packaging. jest-matcher-utils is a possibility after interface becomes clear

The reason to keep semanticCleanup out of diff-sequences is same reason we did not just depend on the excellent diff-match-patch package:

  • it has features we don’t need that I’m not sure tree shaking could get rid of
  • its class interface it is harder to adapt than our callback interface

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SimenB this is making me learn more about Jest build scripts and TypeScript config :)

yarn build-clean and then yarn build:ts creates .d.ts and .d.ts.map only for src/*.ts files

  • It does not copy through src/*.d.ts to build directory
  • Even, by the way, if I add it explicitly to a files array in expect/tsconfig.json file

Compiling as .ts there are 22 errors but allowJs: true and // @ts-check comment only 7 errors because tsc uses JSDoc comments. However that doesn’t give us the .d.ts file (Option 'allowJs' cannot be specified with option 'declaration' error) which is the problem to solve.

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

pedrottimark commented May 11, 2019

Solved by renaming as cleanupSemantic.ts which was not as hard as I had supposed:

  • Converted Diff to class from constructor and prototype
  • Added type annotations for arguments and return values

Finding that tricky Diff.prototype.length = 2; isn’t possible in TypeScript took most of the time ;)

Question: in packages/expect/tsconfig.json is it an optional or necessary manual edit to add {"path": "../diff-sequences"}, to "references" array for new dependency?

Copy link
Contributor

@jeysal jeysal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wooooo, this is super awesome ❤️

@jeysal
Copy link
Contributor

jeysal commented May 12, 2019

Question: in packages/expect/tsconfig.json is it an optional or necessary manual edit to add {"path": "../diff-sequences"}, to "references" array for new dependency?

Mandatory (TSC won't ever look at the folder if it's not referenced) - if it works without, it's probably "lucky" because it's also referenced from ´jest-diff`

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

While writing tests for multi-line strings, I found an edge case of comparison to empty string

Highlighting the non-empty string at left seems less helpful than no highlight at right:

empty one-line expected

empty one-line received

Added a test and then updated it after adding the missing condition

For the test where I found the problem, do you prefer the report at left or right, and why?

empty multi-line received

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented May 14, 2019

I prefer the right one, since it's explicit about the value of "Received". The left one looks like a bug due to it missing received

@pedrottimark
Copy link
Contributor Author

pedrottimark commented May 24, 2019

  • moved printDiffOrStringify from expect to jest-matcher-utils package
  • updated one snapshot test because it is incorrect to display diff for asymmetric matcher

Residue

  • part 2: specialized diff with highlight for multiline strings and also use in toThrow(object)
  • part 3: when received is a string, call printDiffOrStringify for report when snapshot fails
  • data-driven diff: use substring diff when changed array item or object property is a string

Copy link
Contributor

@jeysal jeysal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still LGTM after the tweaks, feel free to merge if you have nothing more to include here in mind ;)

@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 11, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Better reporting for string differences
5 participants