Feature Request: Add API support to stub a parent class constructor. about sinon HOT 4 OPEN

What about just wrapping the code I provided in a utility called sandbox.stubParentConstructor? I am not really feeling I am contributing all that much with this, but you asked about naming 😄 Not sure what else I can help with.

Just a tip: try writing the docs for the feature (describing the API, the context and how to use it) before writing the code and tests. It helps in solidifying a good API.

from sinon.

What about just wrapping the code I provided in a utility called sandbox.stubParentConstructor? I am not really feeling I am contributing all that much with this, but you asked about naming 😄

That does help, actually. Thanks.

Not sure what else I can help with.

You've already helped me a lot, but I'm also looking for feedback on the premise of this proposal. The contribution guide says:

Pick an issue to fix, or pitch new features. To avoid wasting your time, please ask for feedback on feature suggestions with an issue.

I don't have a lot of GitHub knowledge/experience; have you given me the feedback I need to attempt this or should I get signoff from someone else first?

Just a tip: try writing the docs for the feature (describing the API, the context and how to use it) before writing the code and tests. It helps in solidifying a good API.

Good advice. By just thinking about the first step, I'm wondering if it should be stub.stubParentConstructor instead of sandbox.stubParentConstructor. The former may not be possible and I don't like the stub.stub... anyway. :T

from sinon.

I'm wondering if it should be stub.stubParentConstructor

I am not totally sure which parameters are supposed be passed into stubParentConstructor, but I don't think this looks right. Usually you capture a reference to the stub when you do something fancy with it:

const stub = sinon.stub();
const result = stub.stubParentConstructor(FooConstructor)

What would result hold? Is it different than stub? Makes for a confusing API, IMHO, so better stuff it at the sandbox level.

from sinon.

I'm wondering if it should be stub.stubParentConstructor

Makes for a confusing API, IMHO...

After reading your thoughts, I 100% agree. Please ignore that idea.

from sinon.