Use waldo::compare(list_as_map) in expect_mapequal()
#2150
Conversation
This weakens the expectation so it shouldn't cause any existing tests to fail. Fixes #1521
| expect_warning(expect_success(expect_mapequal(x2, x1))) | ||
| expect_warning(expect_success(expect_mapequal(x2, x2))) | ||
| test_that("fails if unnamed values in different location if any unnamed values", { | ||
| expect_success(expect_mapequal(list(1, b = 2, c = 3), list(1, c = 3, b = 2))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should unnamed values be allowed at all in expect_mapequal()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think waldo switches to "not a map" if there are any unnamed values, which seems reasonable to me. It will cause a failure, rather than an error, but I don't think that makes much practical difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So that should mean that this test should fail, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmmm, ok that's not actually what waldo does — when it turns a list into a map, it removes all NULLs, and then reordered named elements, preserving the location of unnamed. That's a different choice but I think equally valid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps so. Maybe this is moot because the use case I think of for mapequal is comparing something coming in from a JSON object, and {1, "b": 2} is not valid JSON. So I would never have a test like this line, and thus it doesn't matter what expect_mapequal() does in this case.
This weakens the expectation so it shouldn't cause any existing tests to fail.
Fixes #1521