Binding assertion methods?

[Rasmus Schultz]

I intuitively want write tests like this:

test("something", ({ ok, equal }) => {
  ok(true, "stuff");
  equal(1, 2);
});

Unfortunately, the functions on the t object use unbounded this, so this leads to weird errors.

I'll admit, I have a general aversion to this and consider it bad practice - in part because of issues like this.

I know the README prescribes a pattern where you qualify these calls at every call site - but the name t just doesn't make any sense to me, and I struggle to come up with a meaningful name... I usually end up doing this:

test("something", is => {
  is.ok(true, "stuff");
  is.equal(1, 2);
});

At least this has some sibilance of semantic, but... is.throws? meeeh. 🤨

I realize it's technically a breaking change, but could we maybe avoid this and bind the assertion functions?

It looks like these are internally closures anyhow, so maybe it's not even a breaking change?

I hope this doesn't seem like a nitpick. I mean, it might be. I've been using zora for a long time, and this has always bugged me.

[RENARD Laurent]

it seems legit. Less this, less problems. I'll try to have a look

[RENARD Laurent]

this should be fixed