Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HTML API: Add tests for virtual node breadcrumbs and depth #6929

Conversation

sirreal
Copy link
Member

@sirreal sirreal commented Jun 28, 2024

Add unit tests for virtual node breadcrumbs and depth. This includes tests for behaviors that were fixed in #6914 / https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/58590.
Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/61348


This Pull Request is for code review only. Please keep all other discussion in the Trac ticket. Do not merge this Pull Request. See GitHub Pull Requests for Code Review in the Core Handbook for more details.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 28, 2024

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN:

Props jonsurrell, gziolo.

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

Copy link

Test using WordPress Playground

The changes in this pull request can previewed and tested using a WordPress Playground instance.

WordPress Playground is an experimental project that creates a full WordPress instance entirely within the browser.

Some things to be aware of

  • The Plugin and Theme Directories cannot be accessed within Playground.
  • All changes will be lost when closing a tab with a Playground instance.
  • All changes will be lost when refreshing the page.
  • A fresh instance is created each time the link below is clicked.
  • Every time this pull request is updated, a new ZIP file containing all changes is created. If changes are not reflected in the Playground instance,
    it's possible that the most recent build failed, or has not completed. Check the list of workflow runs to be sure.

For more details about these limitations and more, check out the Limitations page in the WordPress Playground documentation.

Test this pull request with WordPress Playground.

Copy link
Member

@gziolo gziolo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great

@gziolo
Copy link
Member

gziolo commented Jun 28, 2024

Committed with https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/58592.

@gziolo gziolo closed this Jun 28, 2024
@gziolo gziolo deleted the html-api/add-virtual-node-breadcrumb-depth-tests branch June 28, 2024 09:20
if ( 'open' === $expect_open_close ) {
$this->assertFalse( $processor->is_tag_closer(), "Found closer when opener expected at {$processor->get_tag()}." );
} else {
$this->assertTrue( $processor->is_tag_closer(), "Found opener when closer expected at {$processor->get_tag()}." );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

for tests it's probably helpful to use get_token_name() since if it gets off track on something that isn't a tag this will turn into an empty string when casting from false for the interpolation

$processor->next_token();
}

$this->assertSame( $expected_tag_name, $processor->get_tag(), "Found incorrect tag name {$processor->get_tag()}." );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted in #6765 I generally try to avoid duplicating content in the test failure when it's already reported. Either it's simple enough to let the error say "Failed to find expected tag name" or we add some new and useful information in the interpolation. It's never worth repeating the invalid information in my opinion, because that only repeats that the test failed instead of clueing someone in to what it should be or how they can make it right.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants