Fixes #697 - Mocking a Dummy Function with a Pipeline in two consequitive Context #744
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nohwnd
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the past we've been renaming functions back and forth when mocking an existing function. Apparently we've been lucky that this worked at all, because when we rename the function back, we can wind up modifying its scope.
This PR changes the approach: we never modify the original command, even if it's a function. Instead, we create an alias with the same name (which takes precedence anyway), and point that alias to our mock's bootstrap function that can exist under any name. (Using GUIDs to ensure uniqueness.) When we delete the alias, the original unmocked version of the command goes back to being in effect without any tampering on Pester's part.
Fixes #697