TanStack Pacer version
0.23.0 (main 9233835)
Framework/Library version
Vitest 4.1.11
Describe the bug and the steps to reproduce it
Description
Vitest 4.1 deprecated the toBe* spy assertion aliases in favor of their canonical toHaveBeen* equivalents. According to vitest-dev/vitest#9665, the deprecated aliases are planned to be removed in the next major version.
TanStack Pacer currently uses Vitest 4.1, but several tests still use these deprecated aliases:
toBeCalled() → toHaveBeenCalled()
toBeCalledTimes(n) → toHaveBeenCalledTimes(n)
toBeCalledWith(...) → toHaveBeenCalledWith(...)
Proposed change
Replace all deprecated matcher aliases with their recommended equivalents while preserving the existing assertions and test behavior.
Your Minimal, Reproducible Example - (Sandbox Highly Recommended)
Reproduced directly in the test files on the current main branch.
Screenshots or Videos (Optional)
No response
Do you intend to try to help solve this bug with your own PR?
Yes, I am also opening a PR that solves the problem along side this issue
Terms & Code of Conduct
TanStack Pacer version
0.23.0 (main 9233835)
Framework/Library version
Vitest 4.1.11
Describe the bug and the steps to reproduce it
Description
Vitest 4.1 deprecated the
toBe*spy assertion aliases in favor of their canonicaltoHaveBeen*equivalents. According to vitest-dev/vitest#9665, the deprecated aliases are planned to be removed in the next major version.TanStack Pacer currently uses Vitest 4.1, but several tests still use these deprecated aliases:
toBeCalled()→toHaveBeenCalled()toBeCalledTimes(n)→toHaveBeenCalledTimes(n)toBeCalledWith(...)→toHaveBeenCalledWith(...)Proposed change
Replace all deprecated matcher aliases with their recommended equivalents while preserving the existing assertions and test behavior.
Your Minimal, Reproducible Example - (Sandbox Highly Recommended)
Reproduced directly in the test files on the current main branch.
Screenshots or Videos (Optional)
No response
Do you intend to try to help solve this bug with your own PR?
Yes, I am also opening a PR that solves the problem along side this issue
Terms & Code of Conduct