[Types\to] add unit-tests

[RickBarretto]

Description

• Closes [Converters] Make sure convertedValueToType works fine + add tests #1354

Type of change

• Code cleanup
• Unit tests (added or updated unit-tests)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (implementation update, or general performance enhancements)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation (documentation-related additions)

[RickBarretto]

• Since I'm using unitt 2, this depends on Update unitt #1916.

[RickBarretto]

Everything is set-up. I've just created it into one file, but this should be split into multiple ones in other PR.
Also, some types should be better tested and specific behaviors covered. This also should be done in other PR.

Right now, this covers most of our convertions, and allow us to expand our code without regressions.

Also, this PR depends on #1917. Please merge this after that. 😉

The current situation:

===== Statistics =====

 ⏏️   TOTAL: 84 assertions
✅  PASSED: 84 assertions
⏩ SKIPPED: 217 assertions
❌  FAILED: 0 assertions

===== ========== =====

Those skipped tests reminds me which conversions I should cover as impossible or makes me think about how this should be handled. 😉
This will allow us to fine-tune everything.

[drkameleon]

Great job as usual! 🚀 (and a very thorough one at that... 😉 )

P.S.

(I) Just remember that >> is our alias for write :) (I'm not saying that you change it, I'm just saying I was initially confused when I saw it - for internal files, it's perfectly fine; provided we don't... confuse anyone)

(II) If you think it's ready, I'm merging it! 😉 (Not sure, since it's still a draft - asking to make double-sure!)

[RickBarretto]

@drkameleon you're right. I'm thinking about changing it, so I won't confuse anyone. Neither conflict with other tests.

I forgot to mention, but this PR aims #1913 and #1914.

I tried to deprecate them and move their functions to to.
But the complexity was too high to do anything.

So, I decided to initiate the first step of the cycle: test -> refactor -> change.

I can't change it if I'm not sure about the behavior. Also, can't change if I don't know what I'm changing...

I'll use another symbol to tuples tomorrow. And let you know when its finished. 😉

[drkameleon]

I forgot to mention, but this PR aims #1913 and #1914.

Don't worry about it - leave that to me. It's not precisely nothing + I think I could have a good % of it complete until tomorrow, max. (I was planning it actually)

And then you can focus on tests yourself. 😉

I'll use another symbol to tuples tomorrow.

I wouldn't worry too much; I just mentioned it since I went through the code and I'm like "what are we writing where here?" 🤔 lol

And let you know when its finished. 😉

😉

[RickBarretto]

@drkameleon ready to merge?

[RickBarretto]

Don't worry about it - leave that to me. It's not precisely nothing + I think I could have a good % of it complete until tomorrow, max. (I was planning it actually)

No worries, at least you can change with without fear. 😉

[drkameleon]

Let's go for it. Very nice job! 😉

And... ready to merge! 🚀