feat: add Scope#clone() method

[rsaryev]

New Feature: Scope#clone() Method

This pull request introduces a new method Scope#clone() to the Scope. This method allows creating a new Scope with the same basePath and scope options.

Motivation

This is particularly useful when we cannot wait for all requests to complete, and we want to check if the requests have been fulfilled using the isDone() method.

Usage

Here is a simple usage example:

describe('Example', () => {
  const baseScope = nock('http://example.test')

  it('GET scope is done', async () => {
    const get = baseScope.clone().get('/').reply(200)
    await got('http://example.test/')

    expect(get.isDone()).to.be.true()
  })

  it('POST scope is done', async () => {
      const post = baseScope.clone().post('/').reply(200)
      await got.post('http://example.test/')

      expect(post.isDone()).to.be.true()
  })
})

[gr2m]

What is the advantage over just using nock('http://example.test') instead of baseScope.clone()?

[rsaryev]

The advantage of using baseScope.clone() is the ability to create a new scope with the same parameters without duplicating the parameters in each test.

For example:

describe('Example', () => {
    const baseScope = nock('http://www.example.com', {
        reqheaders: {
            authorization: 'Basic Auth',
        },
    })

    it('GET scope is done', async () => {
        const get = baseScope.clone().get('/').reply(200)
        await got('http://example.test/')

        expect(get.isDone()).to.be.true()
    })

    it('POST scope is done', async () => {
        const post = baseScope.clone().post('/').reply(200)
        await got.post('http://example.test/')

        expect(post.isDone()).to.be.true()
    })
})

You can generally do without baseScope.clone() and make a function that will create a scope with the necessary parameters. But it seems to me that this is not very convenient and I would like to have an interface that helps to clone baseScope with the necessary parameters.

For example:

describe('Example', () => {
    const baseScope = () => nock('http://www.example.com', {
        reqheaders: {
            authorization: 'Basic Auth',
        },
    })

    it('GET scope is done', async () => {
        const get = baseScope().get('/').reply(200)
        await got('http://example.test/')

        expect(get.isDone()).to.be.true()
    })

    it('POST scope is done', async () => {
        const post = baseScope().post('/').reply(200)
        await got.post('http://example.test/')

        expect(post.isDone()).to.be.true()
    })
})

[gr2m]

thank you for clarifying, this is a great additional, and a great PR. Thank you!

[gr2m]

@all-contributors please add @rsaryev for code and test

[allcontributors]

@gr2m

I've put up a pull request to add @rsaryev! 🎉

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 13.5.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

[mikicho]

This ship already sailed, but:
@rsaryev What's not very convenient about a factory function?

export function createScope(url) {
  return nock('http://www.example.com', {
        reqheaders: {
            authorization: 'Basic Auth',
        },
    })
}

[rsaryev]

This ship already sailed, but:

@rsaryev What's not very convenient about a factory function?

export function createScope(url) {

  return nock('http://www.example.com', {

        reqheaders: {

            authorization: 'Basic Auth',

        },

    })

}

Hi, #2564 (comment)

I described it here, or did you have something else in mind?

[mikicho]

Yeah, I just disagree with the conclusion :)
I think adding API to a library should justify the future maintenance effort. In some extreme cases, when you have dozens of functions, it can be cumbersome.