improve includeSameMembers error message

[rluvaton]

What

Improve the error message in case actual and expected do not match

Why

#639

Notes

Before I add the matching coverage I would appreciate a review as there may be some resistant...

Housekeeping

• Unit tests
• Documentation is up to date
• No additional lint warnings
• Typescript definitions are added/updated where relevant

How would it look like:

For the following tests:

Tests

describe('compare', () => {
  test('fails when the arrays are not equal in length', () => {
    expect([1, 2]).toIncludeSameMembers([1]);
  });

  test('fails when not passed array', () => {
    expect(2).toIncludeSameMembers([1]);
  });

  describe('fails when actual has more items than expected (when the ones exists match)', () => {
    test('simple items', () => {
      expect([2, 4, 3, 1]).toIncludeSameMembers([1, 2, 3]);
    });

    test('objects', () => {
      expect([{ id: 2 }, { id: 4 }, { id: 3 }, { id: 1 }]).toIncludeSameMembers([{ id: 1 }, { id: 2 }, { id: 3 }]);
    });
  });

  describe('fails when actual has less items than expected (when the ones exists match)', () => {
    test('simple items', () => {
      expect([2, 3, 1]).toIncludeSameMembers([1, 2, 3, 4]);
    });

    test('objects', () => {
      expect([{ id: 2 }, { id: 3 }, { id: 1 }]).toIncludeSameMembers([{ id: 1 }, { id: 2 }, { id: 3 }, { id: 4 }]);
    });
  });

  describe('fails when actual has more items than expected (when the ones exists not all match)', () => {
    test('simple items', () => {
      expect([3, 1, 8, 5, 6]).toIncludeSameMembers([1, 2, 3]);
    });

    test('objects', () => {
      expect([{ id: 3 }, { id: 1 }, { id: 8 }, { id: 5 }, { id: 6 }]).toIncludeSameMembers([
        { id: 1 },
        { id: 2 },
        { id: 3 },
      ]);
    });
  });

  describe('have gaps', () => {
    test('simple items', () => {
      expect([5, 6, 1]).toIncludeSameMembers([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]);
    });

    test('objects', () => {
      expect([
        { e: 5, value: 'thanks, you' },
        { f: 6, value: '?' },
        { a: 1, value: 'no' },
      ]).toIncludeSameMembers([
        { a: 1, value: 'hello' },
        { b: 2, value: 'world' },
        { c: 3, value: 'how are you' },
        { d: 4, value: 'im good' },
        { e: 5, value: 'thanks, you' },
      ]);
    });
  });
});

This is the result:

Current

old.mov

After this PR

new.mov

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f50a1bc

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
jest-extended	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (711fdcc) 100.00% compared to head (f51f475) 99.21%.

❗ Current head f51f475 differs from pull request most recent head f50a1bc. Consider uploading reports for the commit f50a1bc to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/matchers/toIncludeSameMembers.js	93.87%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #640      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.21%   -0.79%     
===========================================
  Files           73       73              
  Lines          674      767      +93     
  Branches       290      315      +25     
===========================================
+ Hits           674      761      +87     
- Misses           0        6       +6     

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

[rluvaton]

The failures are coverage failures just wanna get some feedback before putting the time fixing them

[rluvaton]

Cc @SimenB

[rluvaton]

Ping 😄

[rluvaton]

Cc @keeganwitt

[SebTVisage]

Any update on this? The current output is unusable as soon as you have a big array or "big" objects in it

[rluvaton]

@SebTVisage Until and if the related PR gets merged I created an npm package with that matcher and the better output:
https://github.com/rluvaton/expect-matchers (I also improved the performance for primitives - rluvaton/expect-matchers#7)

[keeganwitt]

I'll try to take a look at this.

[rluvaton]

Thank you

After this is merged I will create a performance improvement for that function for primitive values

[keeganwitt]

@SimenB any thoughts on this idea?