Improve toHaveBeenCalledExactlyOnceWith messages

[forivall]

What

Improve the output of toHaveBeenCalledExactlyOnceWith to display a diff when the arguments do not match.

Notably, I use printDiffOrStringify to improve readability with many arguments or with complex arguments. Jest's core expect uses a diff matcher as well, although it has added complexity to display the diff without indentation. I think the solution I've implemented here is a happy middle ground.

In the following example, it's hard to tell what the incorrect call was, because the second argument is not printed, and, if it was complex, it would be hard to read.

Before:

expect(received).toHaveBeenCalledExactlyOnceWith(expected)

Expected mock function to have been called exactly once with ["hello", "where"], but it was called with "hello""

After:

expect(received).toHaveBeenCalledExactlyOnceWith(expected)

- Expected arguments  - 1
+ Received arguments  + 1

  Array [
    "hello",
-   "where",
+   "there",
  ]

Why

Fixes #645, fixes #672, and fixes #690, and the output more closely resembles the output of an argument mismatch when using jest's toHaveBeenCalledWith.

Notes

Housekeeping

• Unit tests
• Documentation is up to date
• No additional lint warnings
• Typescript definitions are added/updated where relevant

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 6efcb87

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
jest-extended	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[aarowman]

Hi, can we get this merged? I've been having issues with the messages for nearly a year now, and would love to see this added!

[tgfisher4]

Just ran into this puzzling error reporting myself... @mattphillips, sorry for the direct ping, but might you have some time to take a look here? 🥺 🙇 This PR will address at least 3 issues (#645 #672 #690)

[tgfisher4]

Checking back again after 6 months - I would still find this valuable!

@forivall, maybe it would help to explicitly request review from @mattphillips and/or @SimenB?

[forivall]

@tgfisher4 I can't manually assign reviewers, unfortunately. You need to be given those permissions to assign reviewers, I think.