Remove the 'was [always] called with [exactly]' assertion

[papandreou]

See #29.

• deprecate was called with in the docs
• deprecate was called with with console.warn
• wait a while so users have had the chance to replace their uses of was [always] called with [exactly] with to have a call satisfying
• replace was [always] called with [exactly] with an assertion that always throws a bubbleThrougherror telling how to switch to to have a call satisfying
• release a new major version

[SleepWalker]

Hello.

I have one question about to have a call satisfying and was [always] called with [exactly]. I can't find a way to assert "always" (e.g. all calls should satisfy some expectation) using to have a call satisfying.

How should I assert, that some spy was never called with specific arguments?

[papandreou]

@SleepWalker, would something like this work for asserting that all calls to a spy satisfy a spec?

How should I assert, that some spy was never called with specific arguments

This is a separate question, right? It's already there as <spy> was never called with <any*> (undocumented), but since we're getting rid of that family of assertions I guess we'll want to add a to have no calls satisfying assertion. Is it something you need often?

[papandreou]

to have no calls satisfying could look something like this: #41

[papandreou]

@SleepWalker Both of the above are in the just released unexpected-sinon 10.6.0:

• to have all calls satisfying
• to have no calls satisfying

I hope that helps :)

[SleepWalker]

Thank you. This is awesome!

Is it something you need often?

Not so often, but sometimes you need to be sure, that your code won't do unneeded things.

Actually, using the first assertion it may be a little bit trickier, but it should work like so:

expect(spy, 'to have all calls satisfying', [
    expect.it('not to equal', ...)
]);

but to have no calls satisfying is easier to understand

[papandreou]

Yeah, you shouldn't have to "invert" the criterion to achieve that :)

[alexjeffburke]

@papandreou we may have a potential roadblock - while looking over mocha test suite, there are uses of "when called with" that have been introduced.

[sunesimonsen]

@alexjeffburke did you mean: was called with?

[sunesimonsen]

What do we win by removing this assertion from the code? Maybe we could just remove the docs or state that it is deprecated.

[alexjeffburke]

@sunesimonsen yes I did mean that.

I guess we don't gain all that much - its just that particular assertion suffers some "surprise" factor as a result of the varargs signature. What I've seen at work is people unfortunately using it because it's in the plugin and happens to work. If we keep it in I would encourage a deprecation notice.