Wording was ungrammatical and hard to understand. I made my best guess as to what you want to say. However, it is not clear from the description or the examples whether the debounce wrapper should inhibit calls attempted ms milliseconds after the last call that wasn't ignored, or ms milliseconds after the last call that was attempted, even if it was ignored. I would think it would be the former, but the example could go either way. If the f(4) example used 1000 or 1001 ms and still runs, that would clear it up. If it has to be 1100 like it is, that would suggest that it's the second scenario above. In my propsed change I preserved the ambiguity.
Qualify that while cachingDecorator() will now work with any number of arguments, the hash() function given will not. Or, perhaps better, could just change the hash function to something like:
function hash(args) {
return [...args].join();
}
Hi!
We should be checking here original function not spy to ensure that we are wrapping transparently.
The test wasn't working and probably that was just a "typo" to begin with.
This makes it work properly.
