We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Code AwesomeJob.perform_async 'Awesome', true
AwesomeJob.perform_async 'Awesome', true
Tests - expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job('Awesome', true) expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job(true, 'Awesome')
expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job('Awesome', true)
expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job(true, 'Awesome')
Both tests pass. Is this expected behaviour ? Shouldn't we check the order of the arguments as well?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Got the same problem by passing custom matcher. This is the reason: https://github.com/philostler/rspec-sidekiq/blob/develop/lib/rspec/sidekiq/matchers/have_enqueued_job.rb#L84
Sorry, something went wrong.
Oof yeah this is a nasty one since we use ContainsExactly which doesn't care about the order. I'll fix it for the V4 release
ContainsExactly
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Code
AwesomeJob.perform_async 'Awesome', true
Tests -
expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job('Awesome', true)
expect(AwesomeJob).to have_enqueued_sidekiq_job(true, 'Awesome')
Both tests pass. Is this expected behaviour ? Shouldn't we check the order of the arguments as well?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: