Support Time progression syntax
See original GitHub issueI couldn’t get the following marble to run with jest-marbles, but it worked fine with the normal testScheduler setup. Cold and hot just give me frames for every letter/digit.
// standard rxjs setup
expectObservable(obs).toBe(' 5000ms b')
// jest-marbles
cold(' 5000ms b')
hot(' 5000ms b')
I hope that’s enough info to reproduce.
npm info = jest-marbles@2.3.1
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Reactions:5
- Comments:8 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Testing RxJS Code with Marble Diagrams
[0-9]+[ms|s|m] time progression: the time progression syntax lets you progress virtual time by a specific amount. It's a number, followed by a time...
Read more >Marble Syntax | Testing - RxJS Course
Next, let's discuss the use of time progression in the marble strings. As mentioned above, we can use the dash ( - )...
Read more >ABL Syntax Reference - Progress Documentation
This section contains reference entries that describe the syntax of ABL. They begin with descriptions of the language punctuation and special characters.
Read more >RxJS - Marble Testing - DEV Community
Marble Syntax · whitespace: horizontal whitespace is ignored, and can be used to help vertically align multiple marble diagrams. · - frame: 1...
Read more >Testing asynchronous RxJs operators | Angular In Depth
Time traveling with virtual time and time progression syntax ... We are providing tailored expert support for developing of your Angular ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Ok, the issue is identified.
jest-marbles
useTestScheduler
in the old way (outside ofrun
method). Time progression syntax is not supported in this way.I’ll issue a new major version that uses
run
method but most likely it will take some time because the documentation has to be aligned and there are syntax differences between the two ways.How urgent is this for you?
I’ll look into this.