◆ JavaScript

Mock a dependency

This is real work, not a feature someone invented — it comes from real job ads and real questions people asked. Below are four ready AI prompts: get it done, make it easy for the next person to say yes to, work out the right move when you are stuck, and stop it coming back.

4prompts
See the prompt↓All JavaScript tasks

The same task, four prompts

today's deadline · the next reviewer · the stuck moment · the pattern
AExecute — do the immediate taskReplace the real API client in this module with a mock so unit tests run offline. In the test,…+
Replace the real API client in this module with a mock so unit tests run offline. In the test, stub the fetchUser function to return a resolved promise with sample data, verify the component renders the sample user's name, and ensure the mock is restored after the test.
when the reply comes backPush once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part, and to say what it assumed. Helpful?
BImprove — make it easier to acceptBefore I submit the test changes, make the mock easier to review: keep the mocked shape…+
Before I submit the test changes, make the mock easier to review: keep the mocked shape identical to the real client, name the mock functions to match production names, surface failure modes (reject case) so reviewers see error handling, and avoid stubbing internal helper functions that make the mock brittle.
when the reply comes backPush once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part, and to say what it assumed. Helpful?
CDecide — diagnose the stuck momentAfter adding a mock for the API client in one test file, other tests started receiving the…+
Mock leaks into other tests
After adding a mock for the API client in one test file, other tests started receiving the stubbed responses and failing. I used a global module mock and I suspect teardown didn't restore it. I can't see where the leak originates. What is the likely cause and the safest change to isolate the mock to this test file only?
when the reply comes backPush once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part, and to say what it assumed. Helpful?
DBecome — change the patternOver time we have many tests that mock modules differently; some use global module mocks, some…+
tests rely on lots of ad hoc module mocks
Over time we have many tests that mock modules differently; some use global module mocks, some replace require cache, and others monkey-patch. This inconsistency causes leaks and slow, confusing failures. Recommend one team-wide approach to mocking dependencies that minimizes leaks and makes tests easier to understand, and describe the single initial refactor to apply across the codebase.
when the reply comes backPush once: ask it to sharpen the weakest part, and to say what it assumed. Helpful?

Questions people actually ask

honest answers, no sign-up

Every task here was seen in the real world. Someone doing the job named it, a real job ad asked for it, or a lot of people asked about it online.

If nothing real showed a task, it is not on the page. That is the whole rule.

They are the same job approached four ways, because what you need depends on where you are.

Get it done today. Make it easy for the next person to say yes to. Work out the right move when you are stuck. Learn the pattern so the job stops coming back.

For most of these jobs it can carry the heavy thinking - draft it, sort it, check it, rehearse it with you.

It cannot sit in your chair, take the blame when a number is wrong, or notice what nobody wrote down. Let it do the first 80%. Keep the last 20% that is truly yours.

No. Copy any prompt and paste it into the AI you already use. No account, no score, no wall in the way.

Any of them. The prompts describe the work rather than naming a product, so they are not tied to one assistant.

That is also why they keep working when you switch.

Change it freely. Every prompt is a starting line, not a rule.

Put in your real numbers, your real names and your real deadline. The more you make it yours, the better the answer comes back.

The tasks come from real job ads, published job data and the questions people ask in public forums.

The steps come from JavaScript's own documentation, with practitioner sources for the traps the manual does not mention.

Push once. Ask it to sharpen the weakest part and to say what it assumed.

Most wrong answers come from a missing detail rather than a bad prompt - tell it the thing it could not know.