toBeInTheDOM name is misleading about what it really does

[testing-library]

toBeInTheDOM name is misleading about what it really does

[antsmartian]

@gnapse I can give it a shot on this, if I get some time tomorrow.

[antsmartian]

@gnapse Sorry was busy.. Yeah should be able to close this when I get time :)

[kentcdodds]

I'm in favor of all three of these matchers, especially these two:

expect(container).toContainElement(element)
expect(element).toBeInTheDOM(container)

👍

[gnapse]

But .toBeInTheDOM receiving the container optionally, or always? I assume the former, so it does not become a breaking change, right?

[kentcdodds]

Yes, it would be optional 👍

[gnapse]

Ok, I should have time to work on some of these later this week, but if someone else can give it a crack, go for it.

(Maybe @sompylasar, since he originally reported it and was needing it?)

[gnapse]

BTW, I'd rule this out for the time being:

expect(element).toBeAChildOf(parent)

As its name suggest, it'd be checking only for a direct parent-child relationship between two nodes. This is not as useful and it's a bit more brittle than checking a more general ancestry relationship. After all, users on the screen do not really know about direct relationships. They generally care about seeing some elements inside others, and that's what .toContainElement expressed already.

[gnapse]

@antoaravinth are you still up to get this?

[gnapse]

Sure, no problem and no hurries, just wanted to check if your offer was still on.

[gnapse]

Closing as this was solved in #25