RFC - manually flush microtasks in afterEach #440
Conversation
This PR replaces calling async act() in afterEach, with a version that still flushes microtasks, but doesn't wrap with act(). Explanation: If there are any hanging microtasks, that means a test ran without asserting on a valid state. Any async portion that causes updates should be asserted on, or atleast resolved within the scope of a test. This PR should still fire missing act warnings for a test, but won't let it leak to the next one.
|
Can you give an example of when this would prevent an issue that the current implementation doesn't? Not that I disagree with this, I just want to better understand what it's fixing. |
|
This looks fine. A tiny bit complicated, but I'm cool with it, especially since it's coming right out of React. We're getting a failure thanks to code coverage. I'm not too concerned about this file though, so you can add Fun fact: I added |
|
Oh, also, THANK YOU SUNIL! |
|
I got that updated. I'm pretty 👍 about this change. |
|
@threepointone, as this is titled "RFC" I just want to be certain that you think this should be added or if this PR was more of an idea/suggestion. I'm for it personally. |
|
I missed the conversation here, sorry. I think we should do this, yes. I'll rebase the PR later today. |
Hey @threepointone, if you're busy I could do the rebase? |
|
Yeah could you take this over? Thanks in advance! |
Sorry that it took so long, I've created a new PR with the squashed commit. |
|
Closing in favor of #514 |
This PR replaces calling async act() in afterEach, with a version that still flushes microtasks, but doesn't wrap with act().
Explanation: If there are any hanging microtasks, that means a test ran without asserting on a valid state. Any async portion that causes updates should be asserted on, or atleast resolved within the scope of a test. This PR should still fire missing act warnings for a test, but won't let it leak to the next one.