fix: handle logging step

[kobenguyent]

Motivation/Description of the PR

• export step as public API so that it could be used in the custom helper, for instance our helper https://github.com/codeceptjs/expect-helper/blob/main/index.js#L51

const  Step = require('codeceptjs')
const step = new Step('I', `expect "${JSON.stringify(actualValue)}" to not equal "${JSON.stringify(expectedValue)}"`);
output.step(step)

• handle the case which the step is a string

    [1]  Error (Non-Terminated) | TypeError: step.toCliStyled is not a function | err => { step.status = 'failed' step.endTime = Dat...
    [1] Error | TypeError: step.toCliStyled is not a function undefined...
    [1] <teardown>  Stopping recording promises
    [2]  Starting recording promises

Type of change

• 🔥 Breaking changes
• 🚀 New functionality
• 🐛 Bug fix
• 🧹 Chore
• 📋 Documentation changes/updates
• ♨️ Hot fix
• 🔨 Markdown files fix - not related to source code
• 💅 Polish code

Checklist:

• Tests have been added
• Documentation has been added (Run npm run docs)
• Lint checking (Run npm run lint)
• Local tests are passed (Run npm test)

[DavertMik]

how about adding step export to index.js?

const { step } = require('codeceptjs')

this is how we access all internal API

codeceptjs/steps is userland API which is used inside tests, not custom helpers, or plugins

[kobenguyent]

Sounds better @DavertMik

[DavertMik]

maybe better would be:

if (step instanceof Step) {
  // ...
} elseif (typeof step == 'string') {
} else {
   // incorrect step
}

try catch is not the best approach here if we know where error can happen and how to avoid it

[DavertMik]

Something happened with tests in this 😢

[DavertMik]

Hey @kobenguyent , I have a better idea for this case

How about create a Step that can execute arbitrary function

See my implementation in #4781

https://github.com/codeceptjs/CodeceptJS/pull/4781/files#diff-175fae64a79f8903d1998c3068b43193025a23c36cecc50031fc7009e19b0460

here is what you can do:

const  FuncStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/func')
const step = new Step(`expect "${JSON.stringify(actualValue)}" to not equal "${JSON.stringify(expectedValue)}"`);
step.setCallable(...) // actual assertion happens here?
output.step(step)

you can actually add this step to promise chain

const recordStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/record')
const  FuncStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/func')
const step = new Step(`expect "${JSON.stringify(actualValue)}" to not equal "${JSON.stringify(expectedValue)}"`);
step.setCallable(...) // actual assertion happens here?
recordStep(step)

In this case, all steps should are actual Steps
if needed more we can extend from BaseStep to create customized steps

so no need to pass strings

[kobenguyent]

Hey @kobenguyent , I have a better idea for this case

How about create a Step that can execute arbitrary function

See my implementation in #4781

https://github.com/codeceptjs/CodeceptJS/pull/4781/files#diff-175fae64a79f8903d1998c3068b43193025a23c36cecc50031fc7009e19b0460

here is what you can do:

const  FuncStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/func')

const step = new Step(`expect "${JSON.stringify(actualValue)}" to not equal "${JSON.stringify(expectedValue)}"`);

step.setCallable(...) // actual assertion happens here?

output.step(step)

you can actually add this step to promise chain

const recordStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/record')

const  FuncStep = require('codeceptjs/lib/steps/func')

const step = new Step(`expect "${JSON.stringify(actualValue)}" to not equal "${JSON.stringify(expectedValue)}"`);

step.setCallable(...) // actual assertion happens here?

recordStep(step)

In this case, all steps should are actual Steps

if needed more we can extend from BaseStep to create customized steps

so no need to pass strings

Hi @DavertMik thanks for sharing this. So still do we need this PR just to handle the custom helpers for instance that are not yet adapted with new implementation?

[DavertMik]

@kobenguyent if you think it is needed for backwards compatibility with Expect helper I'm ok
but in 4.0 this should be dropped

[kobenguyent]

@kobenguyent if you think it is needed for backwards compatibility with Expect helper I'm ok

but in 4.0 this should be dropped

Oh, if this shall be dropped in 4.0 then I'd say let's exclude this.