Feature request: resolvedWith

[mm-gmbd]

There may be a great reason to not include this, but it feels a bit odd (as I'm starting to write some async test cases) to provide a rejectedWith but not a fulfilledWith.

I understand that I can use .to.eventually.be.fulfilled.and.equal, but I'm wondering -- are:

• .to.eventually.be.rejected.and.equal(), and
• .to.eventually.be.rejectedWith()

not essentially the same?

If so, I'd think that the fulfilledWith "shortcut" should also be included. If they're not the same, then we can close this request due to my ignorance 😄

[e22m4u]

Same here. I was surprised by the lack of "resolvedWith" and "fulfilledWith". But I think the problem is in how we’re should compare a Promise result with the expectation - eq vs eql

expect(promise).to.eventually.be.eq(expectation);
expect(promise).to.eventually.be.eql(expectation);

[43081j]

seems like a sensible idea to have fulfilledWith. it'd be pretty simple I think compared to rejectedWith since rejectedWith supports passing errors, error constructors, etc. meanwhile, fulfilledWith would literally do the same as an equality check

if either of you want to contribute that, i'd be happy to review

otherwise I can try find time to do it