chai-should: improve contain transformations

[kristerkari]

Hello,

When transforming a large test suite I noticed that the .to.contain transformations are not done very well when there are function calls involved.

In the case when the argument for expect() or .to.contain() is a function call, it would be better to simply transform .to.contain() => .toContain() to avoid any problematic results, which is what my changes do.

Since in Jest's .toContain works on strings and arrays, it should not be needed to transform .to.contain to anything more complicated when we don't know what the result of the function call is.

A real example from the codebase that I'm transforming:

expect(getLink("en")).to.contain(encodeURIComponent("test client name en"));

...gets transformed to:

expect(getLink("en")).toEqual(expect.arrayContaining([encodeURIComponent("test client name en")]));

...and after these changes:

expect(getLink("en")).toContain(encodeURIComponent("test client name en"));

ping @skovhus

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 75.00% and project coverage change: +0.05 🎉

Comparison is base (87daaa6) 92.39% compared to head (70eb736) 92.45%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #501      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.39%   92.45%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        1934     1935       +1     
  Branches      404      403       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         1787     1789       +2     
  Misses        101      101              
+ Partials       46       45       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/transformers/chai-should.ts	95.10% <75.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[skovhus]

Makes sense. Thanks