Update fake-indexeddb 4.0.2 → 5.0.2 (major)

[depfu]

Here is everything you need to know about this upgrade. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request.

What changed?

✳️ fake-indexeddb (4.0.2 → 5.0.2) · Repo · Changelog

Release Notes

5.0.2

• #94 - Improved performance of IDBObjectStore.count and IDBIndex.count.

5.0.1

• #89 - Fixed bug where ArrayBuffer views were not being correctly handled when used as keys.

• #88 - Added explanation to README.md about how to use fake-indexeddb v5+ with jsdom, since a structuredClone polyfill is not included anymore.

5.0.0

• Dropped support for Node.js 16, which allows me to get rid of the structuredClone polyfill, which reduces the package size by roughly 50%.

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 16 commits:

• 5.0.2
• Changelog
• Compute FDBIndex.count and FDBObjectStore.count directly rather than using a cursor, should improve performance
• Fix issue number
• 5.0.1
• Changelog
• Update README for jsdom compatibility with fake-indexeddb 5
• Follow spec better when converting ArrayBuffer views to keys
• 5.0.0
• Changelog
• Fix CI
• Switch from yarn to npm
• Fix lint
• Update Node versions in CI
• Upgrade dependencies and switch from tslint to eslint
• Drop structuredClone polyfill and support for Node 16

---

Depfu will automatically keep this PR conflict-free, as long as you don't add any commits to this branch yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting with @depfu rebase.

All Depfu comment commands

@​depfu rebase

Rebases against your default branch and redoes this update

@​depfu recreate

Recreates this PR, overwriting any edits that you've made to it

@​depfu merge

Merges this PR once your tests are passing and conflicts are resolved

@​depfu cancel merge

Cancels automatic merging of this PR

@​depfu close

Closes this PR and deletes the branch

@​depfu reopen

Restores the branch and reopens this PR (if it's closed)

@​depfu pause

Ignores all future updates for this dependency and closes this PR

@​depfu pause [minor|major]

Ignores all future minor/major updates for this dependency and closes this PR

@​depfu resume

Future versions of this dependency will create PRs again (leaves this PR as is)

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task

[julienw]

see #4796 (comment)

[canova]

@​depfu rebase

[canova]

@julienw hey, I've updated the PR to import the structuredClone polyfill. Could you take a look at it? I also added core-js libdef, that's why it shows a large number on the added lines section.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.47%. Comparing base (720a43b) to head (434ef51).

❗ Current head 434ef51 differs from pull request most recent head b0f490f

Please upload reports for the commit b0f490f to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4877      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.48%   88.47%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         304      304              
  Lines       27392    27249     -143     
  Branches     7400     7350      -50     
==========================================
- Hits        24239    24108     -131     
+ Misses       2931     2925       -6     
+ Partials      222      216       -6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[julienw]

This looks good to me, thanks.

I wonder if we can use this opportunity to use autoMockIndexedDB everywhere we need it. I'm fine doing it in a separate PR though. What do you think?

[julienw]

Should we use autoMockIndexedDB here and in the tests below instead of defining the polyfill manually?

[canova]

Oops I forgot this PR 😅

@julienw

I wonder if we can use this opportunity to use autoMockIndexedDB everywhere we need it. I'm fine doing it in a separate PR though. What do you think?

That was my first instinct as well while looking at this PR back then. But turns out it's not possible to use autoMockIndexedDB in these tests because these tests are a bit different.

autoMockIndexedDB resets the mock indexedDB with beforeEach and afterEach between each subtests. But these tests use beforeAll and afterAll because each subtests actually use the same database and they require the DB not to be reset in between them. That's why it's not possible to use autoMockIndexedDB for them.

[canova]

(Rebased and fixed the merge conflict)