-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 734
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
fix: Parallel requests on same Interceptor are exposed correctly in reply functions #2056
Merged
mastermatt
merged 4 commits into
nock:main
from
mastermatt:2054/fix-parallel-request-context
Aug 11, 2020
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f0d15e0
fix: Parallel requests on same Interceptor are exposed correctly in r…
mastermatt 73cf1cc
Merge branch 'main' into 2054/fix-parallel-request-context
mastermatt db44d2d
Merge branch 'main' into 2054/fix-parallel-request-context
mastermatt d42bae5
fixup: use Sinon in test
mastermatt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could this be clearer using a spy? You could assert called with
'A'
, and then a second assert called with'B'
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, looks like I lost track of the PR.
To use Sinon for the assertions, I think it would look like the following. I'm not sure it makes the test any clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@paulmelnikow I'd like to get this out. Any thoughts on preference between the current approach with an array vs Sinon?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just played around with this a bit. Personally I think the Sinon version is better. Though I do think this is just a style preference.
You could use
expect(fooHeadersStub).to.have.been.calledTwice()
in place ofcallCount(2)
.