Conversation
c61ba82 to
190ce45
Compare
4c514fe to
2259962
Compare
2259962 to
72efbf8
Compare
5817dc1 to
1e2a9c3
Compare
1e2a9c3 to
5fbe42a
Compare
Co-Authored-By: Suany Chalan <79164262+suany0805@users.noreply.github.com>
JoseLion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good so far! There's a few things to address but I think we're on the right path in general. Let me know if you have any questions 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're missing tests for .not.toBeDisabled() and not.ToBeEnabled(). The messaging is different, so having some unit tests is good. I'd test them together with the not inverted test cases to make things simpler, check the core package for examples 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi José! I have reviewed the comment and had to modify the logic of toBeEnabled() to correctly account for the error messages that should be displayed when using .not.toBeDisabled() and not.ToBeEnabled(). I have also added the tests, but please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
…of main assertive path
0022d85 to
898721a
Compare
JoseLion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! I left a suggestions for the JSDoc, but feel free to merge once you check that. 🎉
|
@all-contributors please add @suany0805 for code |
|
I've put up a pull request to add @suany0805! 🎉 |
|
@all-contributors please add @kdquistanchala for review |
|
I've put up a pull request to add @kdquistanchala! 🎉 |
This PR adds the
toBeDisabledandtoBeEnabledmatchers for React Native