Create custom methods to replace Sinon mocks

[paulmillr]

We're using Sinon but I think the functionality can be easily replaced by our own methods.

Maybe we can make aspy less fragile? cc @43081j

[43081j]

we're mostly using it for the sinon-chai assertions (v.should.have.been.called etc) i think

i'd opt to replace it with tinyspy tbh. i don't think we need to build our own call tracking code etc and that package is tiny compared to sinon

[paulmillr]

sounds good

v.should.have.been.called

can be replaced by a custom shortcut

[43081j]

If we use tinyspy, we should probably switch away from should

So we do assert.ok(spy.called) for example. Or the expect equivalent if we prefer that style of assertion

[paulmillr]

we should probably switch away from should

if you're talking about chai, I agree

[paulmillr]

node:assert has everything we need

[43081j]

I saw you moved away from it when adding bun

But it looks like bun should support it. So maybe we should:

• bring node:assert back
• remove micro should
• remove chai
• remove sinon and sinon-chai
• add tinyspy

I can have a go and see what I end up with

[paulmillr]

remove micro should

No. Why? Bun, deno don't support node:test.

[paulmillr]

node:test != node:assert

[43081j]

Ah sorry I misread the source

I understand they're not the same. It was just me misreading

I thought we pulled assert from node already and didn't realise we use chai

I'll have a go at what I said but keep the test runner

[paulmillr]

@43081j great job. A few things:

waitFor signature is a huge mess. We need something which only accepts 1-3 arguments. Not array of arrays etc.

await waitFor([spy]);
// =>
await waitFor(spy);

await waitFor([[spy, 1, [expectedPath]]]);
// =>
await waitFor(spy, 1, expectedPath)

• ok(calledWith()) seems like it could be replaced by just calledWith if calledWith would auto-throw an error?
• calledWith accepts array if arguments. is it necessary? Maybe just ...args?

[43081j]

I agree, I don't like the shape of waitFor in general

• calledWith can be an assertion. I actually had it that way locally but wasn't sure if to push it
• we could use spread, I don't have a preference so am happy to change it

I'll make a branch for these things at some point