assert: change callTracker.calls and callTracker.callsWith to use an object param instead of positional params

What is the problem this feature will solve?

I've been implementing some features on the assert module see #43133 and I figured that it's a bit confusing for users to use the signature:

callTracker.calls()
callTracker.calls(1)
callTracker.calls(fn)
callTracker.calls(fn, 1)

callTracker.callsWith(['arg1'])
callTracker.callsWith(fn, ['arg1'])
callTracker.callsWith(fn, ['arg1'], 1)

When looking at the intelliSense, it's also confusing because the calls signature is calls(fn, exact = 1) however nether fn or exact are required fields so we have to check every positional argument see

node/lib/internal/assert/calltracker.js

Lines 38 to 57 in 71fc444

    
           // When calls([arg1, arg2], ?1) 
        
           if (ArrayIsArray(fn)) { 
        
             exact = typeof withArgs === 'number' ? withArgs : exact; 
        
             withArgs = fn; 
        
             fn = noop; 
        
           } 
        
           // When calls(1) 
        
           if (typeof fn === 'number') { 
        
             exact = fn; 
        
             fn = noop; 
        
           } 
        
           // When calls() 
        
           if (fn === undefined) { 
        
             fn = noop; 
        
           } 
        
           // Else calls(fn, 1, []) 
        
           validateUint32(exact, 'exact', true);

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

I'd like to propose that we use object destructuring for those function signatures as it could improve the editor's intelliSense and readability:

callTracker.calls({
  exact: 1,
  fn: myFn
})

callTracker.callsWith({
  withArgs: ['arg1']
})

What alternatives have you considered?

No response

@nodejs/assert @nodejs/testing

I'm not super-familiar with this API, but the suggestion for calls() to be calls(options) makes sense to me. For callsWith(), I wonder if we want callsWith(args, options).

I'm not super-familiar with this API, but the suggestion for calls() to be calls(options) makes sense to me. For callsWith(), I wonder if we want callsWith(args, options).

I liked it! both calls(options) and callsWith(args, options) 🤩

Should I implement it?

Should I? 😬

I'd say go ahead

There has been no activity on this feature request for 5 months and it is unlikely to be implemented. It will be closed 6 months after the last non-automated comment.

For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

assert: change callTracker.calls and callTracker.callsWith to use an object param instead of positional params #43161

What is the problem this feature will solve?

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

What alternatives have you considered?

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	// When calls([arg1, arg2], ?1)
	if (ArrayIsArray(fn)) {
	exact = typeof withArgs === 'number' ? withArgs : exact;
	withArgs = fn;
	fn = noop;
	}

	// When calls(1)
	if (typeof fn === 'number') {
	exact = fn;
	fn = noop;
	}

	// When calls()
	if (fn === undefined) {
	fn = noop;
	}
	// Else calls(fn, 1, [])

	validateUint32(exact, 'exact', true);

assert: change callTracker.calls and callTracker.callsWith to use an object param instead of positional params #43161

Description

What is the problem this feature will solve?

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

What alternatives have you considered?

Activity

Trott commented on May 20, 2022

Trott commented on May 20, 2022

ErickWendel commented on May 21, 2022

ErickWendel commented on Jun 6, 2022

jasnell commented on Jun 6, 2022

github-actions commented on Dec 4, 2022

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions