Support arrays in t.like() assertion

[tommy-mitchell]

Continues from #3023. Adds a test case (the repro from #2627) and handles the Reflect.ownKeys(array).length issue.

Fixes #2627.

It's been a couple months since someone last said they'd add this, so I went for it.

[tommy-mitchell]

Force pushed because my local user was setup incorrectly.

[novemberborn]

Thanks @tommy-mitchell! I need to find some time to check the current behavior and your changes.

[novemberborn]

Sorry for the long wait @tommy-mitchell. Work is pretty intense so I don't spend much time with computers outside of it.

This looks good, left a comment but the approach looks fine.

Could you also update the documentation at https://github.com/avajs/ava/blob/0574e5e6d7959b7dc506cb2204f432f73ba39451/docs/03-assertions.md#likeactual-selector-message?

The type definition also needs an overload:

ava/types/assertions.d.cts

Line 166 in 0574e5e

<Expected extends Record<string, any>>(value: any, selector: Expected, message?: string): value is Expected;

[tommy-mitchell]

Is this the desired behavior, or should t.like() only support arrays as properties on an object?

[novemberborn]

Now you've opened a can of worms!

If I understand / remember correctly, the second argument recursively selects the entries of the first argument which are then compared against the second. So for objects {a: 1, b: 2} and {a: 3} we compare {a: 1} with {a: 3}. Swap the arguments and we compare {a: 3, b: undefined} with {a: 1, b: 2}.

For arrays then we can only compare the indexes for which the selector has a value: [1, 2] and [3] compares [1] with [3]. Swap the arguments and we compare [3, undefined] with [1, 2].

I think that's all consistent enough and so it'd be fine to support arrays as top-level arguments. What do you think?

[novemberborn]

Hi @tommy-mitchell, bit of an oopsy here. I went to check up on this PR and found a pending comment I never submitted 🤦

[novemberborn]

Now you've opened a can of worms!

If I understand / remember correctly, the second argument recursively selects the entries of the first argument which are then compared against the second. So for objects {a: 1, b: 2} and {a: 3} we compare {a: 1} with {a: 3}. Swap the arguments and we compare {a: 3, b: undefined} with {a: 1, b: 2}.

For arrays then we can only compare the indexes for which the selector has a value: [1, 2] and [3] compares [1] with [3]. Swap the arguments and we compare [3, undefined] with [1, 2].

I think that's all consistent enough and so it'd be fine to support arrays as top-level arguments. What do you think?