jest-extended VS bash

I recently came across a workaround for this issue by using the expect.toBeOneOf() matcher from the jest-extended library. This matcher allows you to check whether a value matches one of the expected values, including null and undefined.

Yes, a standardized expect would be nice, but care has to be taken to not bloat it.

Currently I use vitest and https://github.com/jest-community/jest-extended which gets you a reasonable amount of usable matchers.

Jest-Extended: Additional Jest matchers

> Next you'll be telling me that I shouldn't use Bash because Bash 5.0 came out in 2018 and only got two minor point releases over the next 5 years. But that sounds dumb, huh?

What's dumb is not being able to tell the difference. It's not about the numbers.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/ shows there are constant updates. Things are being worked on. Your example proves my whole point. There are updates every year for many years.

Express? Not so. There are many gaps in its history. And for a tool like Express that has way more surface area it is in need of a lot more testing and updating e.g. if NodeJs changes something it breaks.

Does Bash need to make sure it works with HTTP3, Brotli or many other things that came out? No.

> Because for the most part - it doesn't need them.

Right, let's go back to the Stone Age. You don't need clothes either - just a leaf. You're just so dismissive on innovation then why bother? You don't even need NodeJs. Back to assembly and punch cards...

> Is an ignorant take.

Yes, yours. As shown above by your example.

> People promote it because it's a good tool.

And how do you know that? Where are the stats? Or people just google for NodeJs server, see the top response being Express and just do that. The cycle then repeats. Have people promoting it actually benchmarked, compared and investigated all the tools before making this informed decision? I'm sure you've heard from each and everyone 1 of them to know the answer eh.

If anyone else is wondering (but it's probably just me), "compatibility level 50" doesn't mean that Bash has a complicated feature-detection algorithm that places compatibility on a scale from 0 to 100%. "Level 50" just means compatibility with bash 5.0.

The bash shell also has code in it to check for this same magic number. This is because bash is also available on systems where the kernel doesn't do #! processing, but people would still want their scripts to behave in a predictable manner. You can see this in execute_cmd.c from the current bash source code.

Well, have you looked at the bash source? The error message is around line 4481 in this file: https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/jobs.c

Was it some ancient bug? I cant seem to find a mention of it in bash changelog

Here is Bash's source code.

After I made the comment I actually decided to look up BASHs source code and here appears to be the part that handles errors if the filename is to be believed https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/error.c

I present you a middle case: here's the source code for Gnu bash's cp command.