From 849acb473827fc25ffdc98dce7f818c716c0191a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Unsung Hero <66092015+myrotvorets-team@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 08:14:09 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Create README.md

---
 README.md | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 README.md

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5518332
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# fake-knex-client
+
+Fake Client for Knex.js
+
+## Usage
+
+```typescript
+import * as knexpkg from 'knex';
+import mockKnex from 'mock-knex';
+import { FakeClient } from 'fake-knex-client';
+
+describe('...', function () {
+    let db: knexpkg.Knex;
+
+    before(function () {
+        const { knex } = knexpkg.default;
+        db = knex({ client: FakeClient });
+        mockKnex.mock(db);
+    });
+
+    // ...
+});
+```
+
+## Why
+
+We discovered that our integration tests, which involve a real database,
+don't work smoothly alongside our functional tests that use `mock-knex`
+with the actual database driver when we employ `mocha` as our test runner.
+This issue likely arises because `mocha`, unlike `jest`, doesn't isolate each test,
+resulting in some unexpected behavior.
+
+One potential solution we considered was to utilize a distinct database driver
+for functional tests, such as `better-sqlite3`. However, this approach
+would introduce a significant and unnecessary dependency to our project.