I'm trying to test a function which calls another module's function which returns a promise,
The problem is that jest does not wait for completion of the myFunction and jumps out of it and treat it as a promise, as result section shows the "done" message is printed before "resolve" message. I have work around using setImmediate but I rather not to use it and want to understand the reason.
the simplified version of the code is following:
The module which is mocked
// repo.js
const getItems = () => {
console.log('real');
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(
() => resolve('result'), 1000);
}
);
}
module.exports = {
getItems
};
Unit under test:
// sample.js
const repo = require('./repo');
const myFunction = (req, res) => {
console.log('myFunction');
repo.getItems()
.then(goals => {
console.log('resolve');
res.val = 'OK';
}).catch(err => {
console.log('reject');
res.val = 'Failed';
});
return;
};
module.exports = {myFunction};
Test file:
// sample.test.js
const repo = require('./repo');
const sample = require('./sample');
const result = {
'message': 'done'
};
describe('Tests for receiving items', () => {
it('should call and be successful. ', () => {
repo.getItems = jest.fn(() => {
console.log('mocking');
return new Promise((resolve) => ( resolve(result) ));
});
const response = {val: 'test'};
const request = {};
sample.myFunction(request, response);
console.log('done');
expect(response.val).toBe('OK');
})
}
);
The result is:
console.log MySample\sample.js:5
myFunction
console.log MySample\sampel.test.js:11
mocking
console.log MySample\sampel.test.js:17
done
console.log MySample\sample.js:9
resolve
Error: expect(received).toBe(expected)
Expected value to be (using ===):
"OK"
Received:
"test"
Expected :OK
Actual :test
The test you wrote reflects the correct usage, and you might say it fulfilled its purpose, because it uncovered a bug in your implementation.
To show what exactly went wrong, I will get rid of everything that is not needed, which leads to an even more minimal example. The following test file can be run by Jest and it reproduces your problem.
const myFunction = (res) => {
Promise.resolve()
.then(goals => {
res.val = 'OK';
}).catch(err => {
res.val = 'Failed';
});
return;
};
it('should call and be successful. ', () => {
const response = {val: 'test'};
myFunction(response);
expect(response.val).toBe('OK');
})
myFunction starts a promise (which resolves immediately here with no value) and returns nothing (undefined). You can also test the error part by using Promise.reject instead of Promise.resolve. When you call myFunction(response) the next line is executed when myFunction finishes. This is not when the promise actually finishes, but the function itself. The promise could take any amount of time and there is no way for you tell when it actually finished.
To be able to know when the promise finished, you need to return it, so you can use a .then() on it to execute something after the promise has been resolved. Both .then() and .catch() return a new promise which resolves with the returned value, which in this case is again undefined. That means you need to do your assertion in the .then() callback. Similarly, Jest thinks that the test ends as you exit the function even though it should wait for the promise to be settled. To achieve this you can return the promise from the test and Jest will wait for its completion.
const myFunction = (res) => {
// Return the promise from the function, so whoever calls myFunction can
// wait for the promise to finish.
return Promise.resolve()
.then(goals => {
res.val = 'OK';
}).catch(err => {
res.val = 'Failed';
});
};
it('should call and be successful. ', () => {
const response = {val: 'test'};
// Return the promise, so Jest waits for its completion.
return myFunction(response).then(() => {
expect(response.val).toBe('OK');
});
})
You can also use async/await, but keep in mind that you still need to understand how promises work, as it uses promises underneath. An async function always returns a promise, so Jest knows to wait for its completion.
it('async/await version', async () => {
const response = {val: 'test'};
// Wait for the promise to finish
await myFunction(response);
expect(response.val).toBe('OK');
})
Usually you would also return a value from the promise (in .then() or .catch()) instead of mutating an outer variable (res). Because if you use the same res for multiple promises, you will have a data race and the outcome depends on which promises finished first, unless you run them in sequence.
Related
I want to cancel a promise in my React application using the AbortController and unfortunately the abort event is not recognized so that I cannot react to it.
My setup looks like this:
WrapperComponent.tsx: Here I'm creating the AbortController and pass the signal to my method calculateSomeStuff that returns a Promise. The controller I'm passing to my Table component as a prop.
export const WrapperComponent = () => {
const controller = new AbortController();
const signal = abortController.signal;
// This function gets called in my useEffect
// I'm passing signal to the method calculateSomeStuff
const doSomeStuff = (file: any): void => {
calculateSomeStuff(signal, file)
.then((hash) => {
// do some stuff
})
.catch((error) => {
// throw error
});
};
return (<Table controller={controller} />)
}
The calculateSomeStuff method looks like this:
export const calculateSomeStuff = async (signal, file): Promise<any> => {
if (signal.aborted) {
console.log('signal.aborted', signal.aborted);
return Promise.reject(new DOMException('Aborted', 'AbortError'));
}
for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) {
// do some stuff
}
const secret = 'ojefbgwovwevwrf';
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
console.log('Promise Started');
resolve(secret);
signal.addEventListener('abort', () => {
console.log('Aborted');
reject(new DOMException('Aborted', 'AbortError'));
});
});
};
Within my Table component I call the abort() method like this:
export const Table = ({controller}) => {
const handleAbort = ( fileName: string) => {
controller.abort();
};
return (
<Button
onClick={() => handleAbort()}
/>
);
}
What am I doing wrong here? My console.logs are not visible and the signal is never set to true after calling the handleAbort handler.
Based off your code, there are a few corrections to make:
Don't return new Promise() inside an async function
You use new Promise if you're taking something event-based but naturally asynchronous, and wrap it into a Promise. Examples:
setTimeout
Web Worker messages
FileReader events
But in an async function, your return value will already be converted to a promise. Rejections will automatically be converted to exceptions you can catch with try/catch. Example:
async function MyAsyncFunction(): Promise<number> {
try {
const value1 = await functionThatReturnsPromise(); // unwraps promise
const value2 = await anotherPromiseReturner(); // unwraps promise
if (problem)
throw new Error('I throw, caller gets a promise that is eventually rejected')
return value1 + value2; // I return a value, caller gets a promise that is eventually resolved
} catch(e) {
// rejected promise and other errors caught here
console.error(e);
throw e; // rethrow to caller
}
}
The caller will get a promise right away, but it won't be resolved until the code hits the return statement or a throw.
What if you have work that needs to be wrapped with a Promise constructor, and you want to do it from an async function? Put the Promise constructor in a separate, non-async function. Then await the non-async function from the async function.
function wrapSomeApi() {
return new Promise(...);
}
async function myAsyncFunction() {
await wrapSomeApi();
}
When using new Promise(...), the promise must be returned before the work is done
Your code should roughly follow this pattern:
function MyAsyncWrapper() {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
const workDoer = new WorkDoer();
workDoer.on('done', result => resolve(result));
workDoer.on('error', error => reject(error));
// exits right away while work completes in background
})
}
You almost never want to use Promise.resolve(value) or Promise.reject(error). Those are only for cases where you have an interface that needs a promise but you already have the value.
AbortController is for fetch only
The folks that run TC39 have been trying to figure out cancellation for a while, but right now there's no official cancellation API.
AbortController is accepted by fetch for cancelling HTTP requests, and that is useful. But it's not meant for cancelling regular old work.
Luckily, you can do it yourself. Everything with async/await is a co-routine, there's no pre-emptive multitasking where you can abort a thread or force a rejection. Instead, you can create a simple token object and pass it to your long running async function:
const token = { cancelled: false };
await doLongRunningTask(params, token);
To do the cancellation, just change the value of cancelled.
someElement.on('click', () => token.cancelled = true);
Long running work usually involves some kind of loop. Just check the token in the loop, and exit the loop if it's cancelled
async function doLongRunningTask(params: string, token: { cancelled: boolean }) {
for (const task of workToDo()) {
if (token.cancelled)
throw new Error('task got cancelled');
await task.doStep();
}
}
Since you're using react, you need token to be the same reference between renders. So, you can use the useRef hook for this:
function useCancelToken() {
const token = useRef({ cancelled: false });
const cancel = () => token.current.cancelled = true;
return [token.current, cancel];
}
const [token, cancel] = useCancelToken();
// ...
return <>
<button onClick={ () => doLongRunningTask(token) }>Start work</button>
<button onClick={ () => cancel() }>Cancel</button>
</>;
hash-wasm is only semi-async
You mentioned you were using hash-wasm. This library looks async, as all its APIs return promises. But in reality, it's only await-ing on the WASM loader. That gets cached after the first run, and after that all the calculations are synchronous.
Async code that doesn't actually await doesn't have any benefits. It will not pause to unblock the thread.
So how can you let your code breath if you've got CPU intensive code like what hash-wasm uses? You can do your work in increments, and schedule those increments with setTimeout:
for (const step of stepsToDo) {
if (token.cancelled)
throw new Error('task got cancelled');
// schedule the step to run ASAP, but let other events process first
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 0));
const chunk = await loadChunk();
updateHash(chunk);
}
(Note that I'm using a Promise constructor here, but awaiting immediately instead of returning it)
The technique above will run slower than just doing the task. But by yielding the thread, stuff like React updates can execute without an awkward hang.
If you really need performance, check out Web Workers, which let you do CPU-heavy work off-thread so it doesn't block the main thread. Libraries like workerize can help you convert async functions to run in a worker.
That's everything I have for now, I'm sorry for writing a novel
I can suggest my library (use-async-effect2) for managing the cancellation of asynchronous tasks/promises.
Here is a simple demo with nested async function cancellation:
import React, { useState } from "react";
import { useAsyncCallback } from "use-async-effect2";
import { CPromise } from "c-promise2";
// just for testing
const factorialAsync = CPromise.promisify(function* (n) {
console.log(`factorialAsync::${n}`);
yield CPromise.delay(500);
return n != 1 ? n * (yield factorialAsync(n - 1)) : 1;
});
function TestComponent({ url, timeout }) {
const [text, setText] = useState("");
const myTask = useAsyncCallback(
function* (n) {
for (let i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
setText(`Working...${i}`);
yield CPromise.delay(500);
}
setText(`Calculating Factorial of ${n}`);
const factorial = yield factorialAsync(n);
setText(`Done! Factorial=${factorial}`);
},
{ cancelPrevious: true }
);
return (
<div>
<div>{text}</div>
<button onClick={() => myTask(15)}>
Run task
</button>
<button onClick={myTask.cancel}>
Cancel task
</button>
</div>
);
}
I have a async function that awaits a promise which resolves when it receives some 'data'. However, when I run the test, I get a Error: Timeout of 300000ms exceeded. For async tests and hooks, ensure "done()" is called; if returning a Promise, ensure it resolves.
Here is my code snippet, I am using this in truffle to test solidity contracts :
contract("Test", async (accounts) => {
it("test description", async () => {
let first = await getFirstEvent(oracle.LogResult({fromBlock:'latest'}));
let second = await getFirstEvent(oracle.LogResult({fromBlock:'latest'}));
Promise.all([first,second]);
//some assertion code
});
const getFirstEvent = (_event) => {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
_event.once('data', resolve).once('error', reject)
});
}
});
Isn't the promise resolving ? I can see 'data' coming back in the callback because I am emitting the callback event in the solidity code I am testing.
I managed to resolve this issue, so posting it here so that others can use the approach.
I created a Promise that times out after a duration we can set :
const timeoutPromise = new Promise((_, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {a
reject(new Error('Request timed out'));
}, 200000);
})
Then, I race the timeoutPromise with the Promise which is fetching data, like this for the case I posted :
Promise.race([getFirstEvent(oracle.LogResult({fromBlock:'latest'})), timeoutPromise]);
It looks to me like there's a few things wrong here.
First of all, your function isn't returning anything i.e. it should be return Promise.all([first, second]);.
Secondly, if the goal of the promise.all is to execute the promises in parallel, then that's not what it's doing here because you already have await statements on those function calls above. What you are looking for here would be:
return await Promise.all([
getFirstEvent(oracle.LogResult({fromBlock:'latest'}),
getFirstEvent(oracle.LogResult({fromBlock:'latest'})]);
Now in terms of the promise not resolving, I'm assuming the event is generated from oracle.LogResult(). In this case, what you'd want to do is setup your promises to listen for the event first, for example:
let first = getFirstEvent();
let second = getSecondEvent();
Now you have 2 promises that are listening for the events. Next, you generate the event:
oracle.LogResult({ fromBlock: 'latest' });
oracle.LogResult({ fromBlock: 'latest' });
Finally, you ensure you wait on the result of the promises:
return await Promise.all([first, second]);
I have a function like this:
join(): void {
this.working.value = true;
if (this.info.value) {
axios.get('/url')
.then((result: ResultStatus) => {
this.result = result;
})
.catch((reason: AxiosError) => {
this.showError(AjaxParseError(reason));
})
.finally(() => {
this.working.value = false;
});
}
}
and I want to write some unit tests for this. The first unit test I want to write is to test that 'this.saving' is set to true so that I ensure my UI has a value it can use to show a loading indicator.
However, when I use jest to mock axios, jest resolves the axios promise immediately and I don't have a chance to test what happens before the then/finally block is called. Here is what my unit test code looks like:
import axios from 'axios';
jest.mock('axios');
const mockedAxios = axios as jest.Mocked<typeof axios>;
import successResponse from './__json__/LeagueJoinInfoSuccess.json';
describe('constructor:', () => {
let vm: classUnderTest;
beforeEach(() => {
vm = new classUnderTest();
mockedAxios.get.mockResolvedValue({ data: successResponse }); // set up the response
vm.join(); // the function under test
});
it('should set working true before calling the server to join', () => {
expect(vm.working.value).toBeTruthy();
});
it('should set working false after calling the server responds', async () => {
await flushPromises();
expect(vm.working.value).toBeFalsy();
});
});
The first expect statement is always false because the finally block is run before I have a chance to do an await flushPromises(); so the working value is always false.
Is there a convenient way to get jest's mock of axios to wait before resolving its promise?
UPDATE: Now here is a really strange thing: If I move the contents of BeforeEach into each of the tests, then it behaves the way that I am hoping it would behave. I guess I will open an issue over at jest and ask them what's going on.
I have a solution for you to create a promise as response, however, we're not gonna resolve it in the 1st test case to keep you test loading state then resolve it in the 2nd test as following:
describe('constructor:', () => {
let vm: classUnderTest;
// Resolve function
let resolveFn: (value?: unknown) => void
beforeEach(() => {
vm = new classUnderTest();
const promise = new Promise(resolve => {
// hold the resolve function to call in 2nd test
resolveFn = resolve;
});
mockedAxios.get.mockImplementation(() => promise);
vm.join(); // the function under test
});
it('should set working true before calling the server to join', () => {
expect(vm.working.value).toBeTruthy();
});
it('should set working false after calling the server responds', async () => {
// resolve the pending promise
resolve({
data: successResponse,
});
// I think you would wait the promise resolved
await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve));
expect(vm.working.value).toBeFalsy();
});
});
Promises just baffle me.
I'm trying to make a mock data service to imitate axios.
My mock put call passes a targetUrl to _fetch which then sees if it's a valid url and either returns a new Promise with a delayed .resolve
const _returnResponse = (mockData, time = 0) => new Promise((resolve) => {
setTimeout(() => {
resolve(mockData);
}, time);
});
or a new Promise with a delayed .reject
const _returnError = (time = simulatedDelay) => {
const returnValue = new Promise(((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
reject(new Error('error'));
}, time);
}));
return returnValue;
};
but when I make my mock put call this returns a mock data that the calling method interprets as a success and console logs in its .then
put(target, putBody) {
const returnValue = _fetch(target, simulatedDelay)
returnValue.then(response => _console('PUT', target, response, putBody));
return returnValue;
},
But with an invalid target console logs an uncaught error
or this handles the error correctly, but console logs an undefined response
put(target, putBody) {
const returnValue = _fetch(target, simulatedDelay).then(response => _console('PUT', target, response, putBody));
return returnValue;
},
Here's the calling method:
saveStuff({ commit, state }, newStuff) {
//other code
return this.$mockAxios.put(url, putBody)
.then((response) => {
return response;
});
},
I feel like I'm completely missing something and I've researched this for hours and I'm still not getting it.
As a direct answer to the question: yes, you can add .then() to a promise after it's created.
Example:
const hi = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => resolve('hello'), 2000);
});
hi.then(result => console.log(result));
As for promises baffling you, I would recommend (aside from more reading) just playing around a lot in your IDE with setTimeout. I know you're already using setTimeout in your mock, but strip it down further and just run the code in its own file, so that you control the whole environment. With lots of console.log('blah') to see the order and such. Also ensure you're just as familiar with callbacks, as promises are just syntactic sugar for callbacks. Try to read up on the JS event loop at the same time - it might provide some context if you know how and when a callback/promise executes.
Note that you can even add .then() after the callback has resolved or rejected. Hence the term "promise" - it's literally a promise that your .then() function will run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise_theory
const hi = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
setTimeout(() => {
console.log('one second');
resolve();
}, 1000);
});
setTimeout(() => {
hi.then(() => console.log('two seconds. this executes approximately a full second after the first promise has resolved'));
}, 2000);
Using proxyquire, sinon, and mocha.
I am able to stub fetch on the first call of fetch. But on the second fetch call, which is recursive, I am not able to assert it. From the output, it looks like the assertion may run before the test finishes. You will see this with second fetch console out after assertion.
index.js
var fetch = require('node-fetch');
function a() {
console.log('function a runs');
fetch('https://www.google.com')
.then((e) => {
console.log('first fetch');
b();
})
.catch((e)=> {
console.log('error')
});
}
function b() {
fetch('https://www.google.com')
.then((e) => {
console.log('second fetch');
})
.catch((e)=> {
console.log('error')
});
}
a()
test:
describe('fetch test demo', ()=> {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done)=> {
fetchStub = sinon.stub();
fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [ fetchStub, fetchStub2 ]
fetch.returns(Promise.all(promises));
proxy('../index', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done()
});
});
fetch test demo
function a runs
1) fetch should of called twice
first fetch
second fetch
lifx alert test
- fetch should of called three times
when rain change is over 50%
- should run fetch twice
0 passing (78ms)
2 pending
1 failing
1) fetch test demo fetch should of called twice:
expected stub to have been called exactly twice, but it was called once
stub(https://www.google.com) => [Promise] { } at a (/home/one/github/lifx-weather/foobar.js:5:3)
AssertionError: expected stub to have been called exactly twice, but it was called once
stub(https://www.google.com) => [Promise] { } at a (foobar.js:5:3)
at Context.it (test/bar.js:22:28)
Updated version
#dman, since you updated your test case I owe you an updated answer. Although rephrased, the scenario is still unorthodox - it seems like you want to ignore in a sense the 'law of gravity' even though you know it's right there in front of you.
I'll try to be as descriptive as possible. You have two functions which are doing async stuff by design. a() calls b() sequentially - by the way this is not recursion. Both functions do not notify their callers upon completion / failure, i.e. they are treated as fire-and-forget.
Now, let's have a look at your test scenario. You create 3 stubs. Two of them resolve to a string and one combining their execution using Promise.all(). Next, you proxy the 'node-fetch' module
proxy('./updated', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
using the stub that returns the combined execution of stubs 1 & 2. Now, if you print out the resolved value of fetch in either function, you will see that instead of a string it's an array of stubs.
function a () {
console.log('function a runs');
fetch('http://localhost')
.then((e) => {
console.log('first fetch', e);
b();
})
.catch((e) => {
console.log('error');
});
}
Which I guess is not the intended output. But let's move over as this is not killing your test anyway. Next, you have added the assertion together with the done() statement.
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done();
The issue here is that whether you are using done() or not, the effect would be exactly the same. You are executing your scenario in sync mode. Of course in this case, the assertion will always fail. But the important thing here is to understand why.
So, let's rewrite your scenario to mimic the async nature of the behavior you want to validate.
'use strict';
const chai = require('chai');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const SinonChai = require('sinon-chai');
chai.use(SinonChai);
chai.should();
const proxy = require('proxyquire');
describe('fetch test demo', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done) => {
var fetchStub = sinon.stub();
var fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
var fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [fetchStub, fetchStub2];
fetch.returns(Promise.all(promises));
proxy('./updated', {
'node-fetch': fetch
});
setTimeout(() => {
fetch.should.have.been.callCount(2);
done();
}, 10);
});
});
As you can see, the only change made was wrapping the assertion within a timer block. Nothing much - just wait for 10ms and then assert. Now the test passes as expected. Why?
Well, to me it's pretty straightforward. You want to test 2 sequentially executed async functions and still run your assertions in sync mode. That sounds cool, but it's not gonna happen :) So you have 2 options:
Have your functions notify callers upon completion and then run your assertions in truly async mode
Mimic the async nature of things using unorthodox techniques
Reply based on original test scenario
It can be done. I've re-factored your provided files a bit so that
can be executed.
index.js
const fetch = require('node-fetch');
const sendAlert = require('./alerts').sendAlert;
module.exports.init = function () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fetch('https://localhost')
.then(function () {
sendAlert().then(() => {
resolve();
}).catch(
e => reject(e)
);
})
.catch(e => {
reject(e);
});
});
};
alerts.js
const fetch = require('node-fetch');
module.exports.sendAlert = function () {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
fetch('https://localhost')
.then(function () {
resolve();
}).catch((e) => {
reject(e);
});
});
};
test.js
'use strict';
const chai = require('chai');
const sinon = require('sinon');
const SinonChai = require('sinon-chai');
chai.use(SinonChai);
chai.should();
const proxy = require('proxyquire');
describe.only('lifx alert test', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', (done) => {
var body = {
'hourly': {
data: [{
time: 1493413200,
icon: 'clear-day',
precipIntensity: 0,
precipProbability: 0,
ozone: 297.17
}]
}
};
var response = {
json: () => {
return body;
}
};
const fetchStub = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve(response));
fetchStub['#global'] = true;
var stubs = {
'node-fetch': fetchStub
};
const p1 = proxy('./index', stubs);
p1.init().then(() => {
try {
fetchStub.should.have.been.calledTwice;
done();
} catch (e) {
done(e);
}
}).catch((e) => done(e));
});
});
What you're trying to do though is a bit unorthodox when it comes to
good unit testing practices. Although proxyquire supports this
mode of stubbing through a feature called global overrides, it is
explained here why should anyone think twice before going down
this path.
In order to make your example pass the test, you just need to add an
extra attribute to the Sinon stub called #global and set it to
true. This flag overrides the require() caching mechanism and
uses the provided stub no matter which module is called from.
So, although what you're asking can be done I will have to agree with
the users that commented your question, that this should not be
adopted as a proper way of structuring your tests.
Here is also a alternative way to do this using Promise.all().
Note: this won't work if using fetch's json method and you need to pass data in the resolve() for logic on data. It will only pass in the stubs when resolved. However, it will assert the number of times called.
describe('fetch test demo', () => {
it('fetch should of called twice', () => {
let fetchStub = sinon.stub();
let fetchStub2 = sinon.stub();
let fetch = sinon.stub();
fetchStub.returns(Promise.resolve('hello'));
fetchStub2.returns(Promise.resolve('hi'));
var promises = [ fetchStub, fetchStub2 ]
var promise = Promise.all(promises);
fetch.returns(promise);
proxy('../foobar', { 'node-fetch': fetch });
return promise.then(() => {
fetch.should.have.callCount(2);
});
});
});
I have found another way to get things done.
May be this could work for someone.
describe('Parent', () => {
let array: any = [];
before(async () => {
array = await someAsyncDataFetchFunction();
asyncTests();
});
it('Dummy test to run before()',async () => {
expect(0).to.equal(0); // You can use this test to getting confirm whether data fetch is completed or not.
});
function asyncTests() {
array.forEach((currentValue: any) => {
describe('Child', async () => {
it('Test '+ currentValue ,() => {
expect(currentValue).to.equal(true);
})
})
});
}
});
That's how I achieved the assertion on every element of the array. (Array data is being fetch asynchronously).