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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix(render): Don't reject wrapper types based on statics #973

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 3, 2021
Merged

fix(render): Don't reject wrapper types based on statics #973

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1510e80
Expected behavior for render#wrapper
eps1lon Oct 3, 2021
a7535eb
fix(render): Don't reject wrapper types based on statics
eps1lon Oct 3, 2021
54057ef
Verify the fix worked for wider props
eps1lon Oct 3, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion types/index.d.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ export interface RenderOptions<
*
* @see https://testing-library.com/docs/react-testing-library/api/#wrapper
*/
wrapper?: React.ComponentType<{children: React.ReactElement}>
wrapper?: React.JSXElementConstructor<{children: React.ReactElement}>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm wondering whether we should define children as React.ReactNode which seems to be the "official" type for children props. https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/master/types/react/index.d.ts#L829

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wrapper never receives anything other than ReactElement. If we would widen children to ReactNode, the implementation of wrapper would have to account for types that it never actually receives.

This is problematic if you want to apply methods to children in the implementation of wrapper that require a single ReactElement such as React.cloneElement.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That makes perfect sense - ReactNode is indeed very wide. Thanks for the explanation.

}

type Omit<T, K extends keyof T> = Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>>
Expand Down
21 changes: 20 additions & 1 deletion types/test.tsx
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -115,13 +115,32 @@ export function wrappedRenderB(
ui: React.ReactElement,
options?: pure.RenderOptions,
) {
const Wrapper: React.FunctionComponent = ({children}) => {
const Wrapper: React.FunctionComponent<{children?: React.ReactNode}> = ({
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

While FunctionComponent adds implicit children, its propTypes do not so we didn't catch that issue. Here we make sure all statics assume the same props. Also makes sure this doesn't break once we get rid of implicit children in React.FunctionComponent.

children,
}) => {
return <div>{children}</div>
}

return pure.render(ui, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...options})
}

export function wrappedRenderC(
ui: React.ReactElement,
options?: pure.RenderOptions,
) {
interface AppWrapperProps {
userProviderProps?: {user: string}
}
const AppWrapperProps: React.FunctionComponent<AppWrapperProps> = ({
children,
userProviderProps = {user: 'TypeScript'},
}) => {
return <div data-testid={userProviderProps.user}>{children}</div>
}

return pure.render(ui, {wrapper: AppWrapperProps, ...options})
}

/*
eslint
testing-library/prefer-explicit-assert: "off",
Expand Down