Skip to content

Conversation

@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator

Also remove a misleading and incorrect comment.

Part of #757

@oliverklee oliverklee added the testing PRs/issues adding additional tests only, or primarily testing-focused label Feb 19, 2025
@oliverklee oliverklee requested a review from JakeQZ February 19, 2025 22:21
@oliverklee oliverklee self-assigned this Feb 19, 2025
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 19, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 53.148% (+1.5%) from 51.654%
when pulling 997eaf7 on tests/get-all-declaration-blocks
into f28fc1f on main.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch from 1a44e9b to a1accfb Compare February 20, 2025 08:20
Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeQZ JakeQZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The tests look fine. But I find them difficult to follow because I can't immediately see how $this->subject has been setUp(). Would it perhaps be clearer for the subject to be set up on a per-test basis? And maybe a separate pre-PR to remove the setUp() method, which I don't think is warranted.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch from a1accfb to 245d68a Compare February 20, 2025 10:02
@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done: #963

@oliverklee oliverklee marked this pull request as draft February 20, 2025 10:06
@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch from 245d68a to e822151 Compare February 20, 2025 10:25
@oliverklee oliverklee marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2025 10:25
@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Updated an repushed.

@oliverklee oliverklee requested a review from JakeQZ February 20, 2025 10:25
Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeQZ JakeQZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think a test method name should not include 'also', and that it would be better to provide non-empty strings which are ideally real-world examples for URL and charset. Otherwise fine.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch from 9651087 to 7fac016 Compare February 20, 2025 11:11
@oliverklee oliverklee requested a review from JakeQZ February 20, 2025 11:12
Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeQZ JakeQZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The method name issue does not seem to be resolved.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch from 7fac016 to 997eaf7 Compare February 20, 2025 12:31
@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oliverklee commented Feb 20, 2025

The method name issue does not seem to be resolved.

Indeed. My bad. Done.

@oliverklee oliverklee requested a review from JakeQZ February 20, 2025 12:31
@JakeQZ JakeQZ merged commit 9736e26 into main Feb 20, 2025
21 checks passed
@JakeQZ JakeQZ deleted the tests/get-all-declaration-blocks branch February 20, 2025 18:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

testing PRs/issues adding additional tests only, or primarily testing-focused

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants