- 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.
Just an update that I've made this Gist public after realising that I had created it as a "Secret" Gist - My bad.
IMO, since the class name already shows in the list of failures, that's not an issue for me.
However, running a specific test becomes a little more awkward via CLI.
Consider:
It's quite possible that this test method name could be used in multiple test classes.
So, you would either have to have an IDE that allows you to click to run a specific test, or use one of the following:
On a personal note, I prefer just using
should_return_false_for_multiple_post_types
without the tested method name, but I can't think of a way that isn't more difficult when running tests.