Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(schematics): introduce unitTestRunner option to support Vitest #688

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 28, 2024

Conversation

Tommy228
Copy link
Contributor

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

PR Type

[ ] Bugfix
[X] Feature
[ ] Code style update (formatting, local variables)
[ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
[ ] Build related changes
[ ] CI related changes
[ ] Documentation content changes
[ ] Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

In the schematics, only Jasmine and Jest are currently supported. If no specific option is provided then Jasmine is used by default. If a --jest flag is provided then the schematics will use Jest imports.

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

I propose introducing a new unitTestRunner flag and deprecating the --jest flag. I believe this approach is better than adding a new --vitest flag, as it avoids redundancy and streamlines the test runner choice. Please let me know if that sounds good to you.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Other information

I have tested this locally with Verdaccio.

* Added support for vitest as a unit test runner.
* Introduced a new unitTestRunner option to specify
the test runner (jasmine, jest, vitest).
* Deprecated the jest option to avoid redundancy
and encourage the use of the new unitTestRunner option.
Copy link

stackblitz bot commented Dec 27, 2024

Review PR in StackBlitz Codeflow Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

@NetanelBasal NetanelBasal merged commit c924703 into ngneat:master Dec 28, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants