- The inclusion of
_it_
seems unnecessary in the context of these isolated tests, UNLESS additional clarity is desired, in which case this should include the function name under test, which seems pretty common.
it
is often used in JS tests/specs in the sense:
describe( 'disableBlockEditorForNavigationPostType', () => {
// Some suites use "it"
it( 'should only disable block editor for navigation post types', () => {})
// Some suites use "test"
test( 'it should only disable block editor for navigation post types', () => {})
// For suites using "test", removing "it" is common
test( 'should only disable block editor for navigation post types', () => {})
})
Converted to PHPUnit, the third example above would look like:
class Tests_Editor_DisableBlockEditorForNavigationPostType extends WP_UnitTestCase {
public function test_should_only_disable_block_editor_for_navigation_post_types() {
}
}
Each of these migrated tests have the same test method name,
test_it_correctly_handles_different_post_types()
, which seems awkward compared with others in the project. Maybe it's just me, but an alternative might be to simplify it totest_handle_different_post_types()
.
My issue with handle
- and admittedly, I've used it myself in the past, is that it doesn't describe the expected behaviour.
i.e. test_handle_different_post_types()
vs test_should_only_disable_block_editor_for_navigation_post_types()
.
By using test_should_
and test_should_not_
prefixes where possible, that means:
- Raw output:
Tests_Editor_DisableBlockEditorForNavigationPostType::test_should_only_disable_block_editor_for_navigation_post_types
Tests_Editor_DisableBlockEditorForNavigationPostType::test_should_not_disable_block_editor_for_missing_post_types
--testdox
output:
_Editor_DisableBlockEditorForNavigationPostType
✔ Should only disable block editor for navigation post types
✔ Should not disable block editor for missing post types
Theoretically, _should_
may not be necessary, but it gives a clear indication of the expected result before the reader even knows the remaining context, and we'll often internally say "Okay, this function should only / should not do something", so this saves the reader time.
Certainly
test_it
doesn't belong in the PHPUnit tests - Both IMO and in the fact that there are only four tests in the project that start withtest_it_
. I think those should be considered for changes either in the umbrella Tests ticket for 6.1, for example, or as part of another effort.Thinking on the method prefixes again, I think
test_should
andtest_should_not
are appropriate prefixes.test_should_only
is a little problematic as it mixes theshould
andshould not
testing concerns.test_method_name_should...
to identify which method is being tested.should
and behaviour/outcome approach to naming can be seen in Writing PHPUnit Tests - Test Methods section, so this wouldn't need any updates to the handbook.On
kses/wpFilterGlobalStylesPost.php
:should_remove_unsafe...
will have a data provider of rules considered unsafe, andshould_not_remove_safe...
will have a data provider of rules considered safe. Consolidating these into one test method with a potentially huge data provider would make it harder to digest.Finally: On you mentioning pedantry, IMO, that's important when implementing, enforcing, or establishing standards. 🙂 Much like brainstorming, get it all out and filter it down to what's appropriate.