docs: add testing for wiki

[omermorad]

Description

This pull request introduces a new document to the InversifyJS repository, focusing on testing strategies with InversifyJS and showcasing the integration of Automock. The document provides a comprehensive guide on two primary approaches to testing: traditional unit and integration testing with InversifyJS, and a streamlined method using Automock. It includes practical examples and code snippets to demonstrate the implementation of these testing strategies.

Related Issue

N/A

Motivation and Context

The motivation behind this change is to enhance the InversifyJS documentation by providing clear and practical guidance on effective testing methodologies. This addition addresses the need for comprehensive documentation on integrating InversifyJS with modern testing tools like Automock, thereby aiding developers in writing more efficient and reliable tests.

How Has This Been Tested?

The added documentation and examples have been reviewed and tested for clarity and accuracy. The examples provided in the document have been executed and verified in a controlled development environment to ensure they accurately demonstrate the intended functionality.

Types of changes

• Updated docs / Refactor code / Added a tests case (non-breaking change)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• I have updated the changelog.

[omermorad]

Hey @PodaruDragos,

Following up on our conversation in Discord, I've submitted a draft for "Testing" with InversifyJS, coinciding with the upcoming release of the Automock Inversify adapter 🎊 🥳

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the overall structure and approach. The examples are still a work in progress, but I'm keen to get your feedback on the general direction before finalizing them.

Thanks for your time and input :)

[PodaruDragos]

hey @omermorad this looks good to me, thanks for going this.

@notaphplover, @jakehamtexas @Jameskmonger could I please have your opinions on this as well ?

[omermorad]

hey @omermorad this looks good to me, thanks for going this.

@notaphplover, @jakehamtexas @Jameskmonger could I please have your opinions on this as well ?

Hello, any updates on this? :)

[Jameskmonger]

A really valuable contribution, thank you @omermorad! Apologies for the delay, I am currently recovering from COVID 😷

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (447e71f) 99.48% compared to head (5fc29df) 99.55%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1548      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.48%   99.55%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          53       53              
  Lines        1370     1573     +203     
  Branches      200      209       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         1363     1566     +203     
  Partials        7        7              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[omermorad]

A really valuable contribution, thank you @omermorad! Apologies for the delay, I am currently recovering from COVID 😷

Sure, my pleasure 🙏🏻
And I hope you get over this COVID quickly 💪🏻