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

Use vitest instead of jest #7

Open
IrvingWash opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Use vitest instead of jest #7

IrvingWash opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@IrvingWash
Copy link

Vitest is faster, more modern and convenient.
May I create a pull request?

@ya7on
Copy link
Member

ya7on commented Nov 9, 2024

Thank for your attention to project.
I am 100% okay with your proposal, but actually jest was added by default in Blueprint (tool i used for creating project structure). I afraid there will be some issues with migrating to another test library. Blueprint add @ton/test-utils dependency where are some utils for testing smart contracts (e.g. finding transaction by filter, lines below show example of using toHaveTransaction from this dependency)

const deployResult = await skipper.send(
deployer.getSender(),
{
value: toNano('0.05'),
},
{
$$type: 'Deploy',
queryId: 0n,
}
);
expect(deployResult.transactions).toHaveTransaction({
from: deployer.address,
to: skipper.address,
deploy: true,
success: true,
});

I mean, if it won't be a problem for you and won't take much time. At first look it is not such a simple task

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants