You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Motivated by #59 it looks like we need to replace prefer-expect-query-by* by better implementation to only force users to replace getBy queries by queryBy when:
This should be checked in several cases. A few I can think of at the moment:
asserting with .not.toBeInTheDocument()
asserting with .toBeNull()
asserting with .toBe(null)this is actually an equivalent for the previous one, probably more variations to cover as .toBeFalsy() but I think just this one is enough for now?
waiting for disappearance with waitForElementToBeRemoved
I can't think better name for this rule than no-get-by-for-element-absence, any suggestions?
*We could maintain prefer-expect-query-by when the new rule is implemented, but I think it wouldn't be that useful anymore and could even lead to confusion
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Motivated by #59 it looks like we need to replace
prefer-expect-query-by
* by better implementation to only force users to replacegetBy
queries byqueryBy
when:This should be checked in several cases. A few I can think of at the moment:
.not.toBeInTheDocument()
.toBeNull()
.toBe(null)
this is actually an equivalent for the previous one, probably more variations to cover as.toBeFalsy()
but I think just this one is enough for now?waitForElementToBeRemoved
I can't think better name for this rule than
no-get-by-for-element-absence
, any suggestions?*We could maintain
prefer-expect-query-by
when the new rule is implemented, but I think it wouldn't be that useful anymore and could even lead to confusionThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: