fix(date-assertion): Solve .toMatchDateParts inconsistencies #87
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
JoseLion
force-pushed
the
fix/to-match-date-parts
branch
from
16c122e to
a4272b3
Compare
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.3.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.0.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This Pr fixes a few inconsistencies with the
.toMatchDateParts(..)method of theDateAssertionclass.optionsToDate(..)helper should not use today's date to fill up the missing options. Using today's date causes inconsistencies around the date comparison whenever the current date is around the edges of the local time offset. I.e., today transforms into tomorrow because of the timezone change, which causes a different behavior.