support {a:1,b:2}.should.include({a:1})

[jkroso]

I also removed some type checking within the assert interface because it was getting in the way a bit. I hope thats ok.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same when pulling 2715e95 on jkroso:include into f3ebb09 on chaijs:master.

[jkroso]

looks like I need to clone the assertion to fix that test case. Anyone know how to do that properly?

[jkroso]

I just realized I'm not handling negations properly too so I'll need to refactor anyway

[logicalparadox]

To handle negation properly you will need to use: https://github.com/chaijs/chai/blob/master/lib/chai/utils/transferFlags.js

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same when pulling acbf04d on jkroso:include into f3ebb09 on chaijs:master.

[vesln]

karma...

[jkroso]

works but needs karma-phantomjs-launcher added to the dependencies list

[vesln]

Yeah, we just shouldn't be using canary because these things happen all of the time lately @logicalparadox

[logicalparadox]

I had it using canary because karma-sauce wouldn't run alongside the karma in npm. I haven't checked recently to see if this works.

If it still doesn't work with the karma from npm, perhaps we could lock to a commit or tag from gh:https://karma...

[lbdremy]

+1 Exactly what I was looking for in chai.

[vbardales]

is it possible to add multi-level objects support ?
like here: https://github.com/vbardales/chai-properties (no negation support here)

            subject = {
              a: 'a',
              b: {
                b1: 'b1',
                b2: {
                  b21: 'b21',
                  b22: 'b22',
                },
                b3: {
                  b31: 'b31',
                  b32: 'b32',
                },
              },
            };

subject.should.include({ b: { b2: { b22: 'b22' }}});
subject.should.include({ b: { b2: { b22: 'b22' }, b3: { b32: 'b32' }}});
subject.should.not.include({ b: { b4: 'b4' }});
subject.should.not.include({ b: { b2: { b22: 'x' }}});

[lbdremy]

What is missing to merge this in master?

[jkroso]

@vbardales would definitely be nice to be able to do deep includes. I've wanted it twice now since making this PR