Closed as not planned
Closed as not planned
Description
Version
30.0.0-alpha6
Steps to reproduce
describe('something', () => {
it('should work', () => {
const f = jest.fn();
f({ a: 1, b: 2 });
f({ a: 3, b: 7 });
expect(f).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.objectContaining({ b: 7 }));
});
});
Expected behavior
Test passes
Actual behavior
FAIL ./demo.test.js
something
✕ should work (38 ms)
● something › should work
expect(jest.fn()).toHaveBeenCalledWith(...expected)
Expected: ObjectContaining {"a": 1, "b": 7}
Received
1: {"a": 1, "b": 2}
2: {"a": 3, "b": 7}
Number of calls: 2
5 | f({ a: 3, b: 7 });
6 |
> 7 | expect(f).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.objectContaining({ b: 7 }));
| ^
8 | });
9 | });
10 |
at Object.toHaveBeenCalledWith (demo.test.js:7:15)
Additional context
I've traced this back to 169ba83#diff-f8846ea7aae48b4baadb9c50ba129cdadc6783e6051e605b5e2827153fc04479R253
The assumption that this.sample is safe to modify is incorrect.
I expect that this will fail in any scenario where objectContaining is compared against multiple values
cc @colinacassidy who supplied the previous fix
Environment
System:
OS: macOS 14.6.1
CPU: (8) x64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1068NG7 CPU @ 2.30GHz
Binaries:
Node: 20.11.1 - ~/.asdf/installs/nodejs/20.11.1/bin/node
Yarn: 1.22.21 - ~/.asdf/installs/nodejs/20.11.1/bin/yarn
npm: 10.2.4 - ~/.asdf/plugins/nodejs/shims/npm
pnpm: 8.11.0 - ~/.asdf/installs/nodejs/20.11.1/bin/pnpm
npmPackages:
jest: ^30.0.0-alpha.6 => 30.0.0-alpha.6